
.0 ~* 





Constitutional History 

OF 

American Episcopal Methodism. 

(i) 



DR. TIGERT'S WORKS. 



Hand-book of Logic : A Concise Body of Logical Doctrine, Including Mod- 
ern Additions; with Numerous Practical Exercises. 12mo. $1. Fifth Edition. 
Used in leading institutions in Massachusetts, Texas, Indiana, Kentucky, Cali- 
fornia, Tennessee, and other States. u It is comprehensive, written with a 
great deal of ability and precision. It may he characterized as multum in par- 
vo."—Dr. H. M. Harman, Dickinson College. You have certainly produced 
an excellent work— one of the best in our language— the influence of which will 
greatly encourage the study of the science in our colleges. I believe and hope 
that it will come into extensive use."— Professor Noah K. Davis, University of 
Virginia. 

Systematic Theology: A Complete Body of Wesleyan Arm in i an Divinity, 
Consisting of Lectures on the Twenty-live Articles of Religion, by the late Rev. 
Thomas O. Summers, D.D., LL.D. The Whole Arranged and Revised, with 
Introduction, Copious Notes, Explanatory and Supplemental, and a Theological 
Glossary. By Rev. Jno. J. Tigert, M.A., S.T.B., Professor in Vanderbilt Uni- 
versity. In two volumes. Royal 8vo. Each $2. (Nearly two thousand sets 
have been sold.) 

'*I regard it as a most valuable contribution to our Methodist and general the- 
ological literature. It ought to occupy a prominent place, because of its broad 
scope and of the rich material which abounds throughout the work."— Bishop 
John F. Hurst. 

The Preacher Himself: Homely Hints on Ministerial Manners and Meth- 
ods. 12mo. $1. (Second edition.) 

" The character, duties, and relations of the ministry, with special reference 
to the requirements of Methodism, are here sketched in graphic outlines, every 
chapter bristling with suggestions of practical value.'' — L. 

Passing Through the Gates, and Other Sermons. By the late Rev. Hol- 
land Nimmons McTyeire, D.D., Senior Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South. Edited, with an Introduction, by Rev. Jno. J. Tigert, D.D. 
12mo. $1. (Second thousand.) 

"Dr. Tigert has given the Church evidence of superior skill, both as an author 
and editor. Bishop McTyeire was known both as a preacher and writer 
throughout the country; so when we saw the book our expectations were high. 
An eajrer perusal has not disappointed us. Dr. Tigert, in his Introduction, has 
given us an instructive, discriminating, and faithful estimate of Bishop Mc- 
Tyeire as a preacher. No juster estimate of the Bishop in this line have we 
seen."— Dr. Potter. 

A Voice From the South: the Fraternal Address, delivered before the 
General Conference of the M. E. Church, May, 1892. 12mo, 64 pages. 10 cents. 
" Dr. Tigert has performed a real service."— J". M. Buckley. 

Theology and Philosophy, A Select Glossary of; Including Brief Bio- 
graphical Notices of Eminent Theologians and Philosophers. Octavo. Paper, 
25 cents. 

"There is more matter in the fifty-two closely printed pages than is usually 
found in one hundred, and the work is distinguished throughout by fullness of 
information, clearness of statement, and remarkable conciseness of expression. 
—Dr. C. F. Smith. 

Original Status of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America. 

Octavo. 21 pages. 10 cents. 

This pamphlet thoroughly investigates, from the original records and extant 
evidences, Mr. Wesley's plan and purpose in organizing American Methodism, 
the acts of the Christmas Conference, and the basis and nature of Methodist 
Episcopacy. 

Wandering Stars; Or, Rationalism the Root of Sin. 8vo. 16 pages. 10 cents. 
Address 

BARBEE & SMITH, Agents, Nashville, Tenn. 

(2) 



Constitutional History 



OF 



erican Episcopal Methodism 



BY JNO. J. TIGERT, D.D. 



Bassanio: . . . " I beseech you, 

Wrest once the law to jour authority: 

To do a great right, do a little wrong." 
Portia: "'Twill be recorded for a precedent, 

And many an error, by the same example, 

Will rush into the state. It cannot be." 

Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice. 




Nashville, Tenn.; 
Publishing House of the M. E. Church, South, 
Barbee & Smith, Agents. 
1894. 



-2 




Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1894, 
the Book Agents of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 

(4) 



REVERENTLY INSCRIBED 

TO THE MEMORY OF MY 

/Iftotber, 

flDar? IDan IDegbten Gigert, 

A Life-long Methodist of the Olden Type, 
the Melody of Whose Voice 
lifted in 

Rapturous Experience, Sacred Song, or Prevailing Prayer, 
In Love-feast, Class-meeting, and Revival Service, 
Yet Lingers, a Hallowing Influence, 
in the heart of 
Her First-born Son. 



PREFACE. 



This history has been written from the sources, with due regard 
to recognized authorities. By sources are meant the journals and 
correspondence of the Wesleys, Coke, Asbury, Whatcoat, Mc- 
Kendree, and others; the memoirs of Ware, Watters, Gatch, and 
Garrettson; the official records of the Conferences in England 
and America; the literature of the governmental questions that 
have agitated the Church; and, in general, whatever contempo- 
rary data are now extant and accessible. By authorities are 
meant the histories of Smith, Bangs, Stevens, McTyeire, Atkin- 
son, Neely, and some others; the biographies by Tyerman, White- 
head, Moore, Southey, Watson, Jackson, Drew, Bangs, Phoebus, 
Lee, Paine, Elliott, Clark, Emory, Hibbard, and others; and 
whatever later publications illustrate the inquiries here prosecuted. 
Jesse Lee's Historv of the Methodists is, for the most part, to be 
accepted as a source. It is not necessary, however, to attempt here 
a complete enumeration of the materials whence the narrative and 
its conclusions have been drawn: ample acknowledgment is made 
in the footnotes, and it is believed that no essential aid has been 
neglected. 

Of a valuable collection of papers, of which considerable use has 
been made, some account should be given. Bishop Asbury's pa- 
pers were left to Bishop McKendree; Bishop McKendree's to 
Bishop Soule, who, it was expected, would be his biographer. 
When Bishop Paine undertook this task, Bishop Soule placed both 
Mr. Asbury's (so far as not previously disposed of) and Mr. Mc- 
Kendree's papers in his hands. Later, Bishop Soule's own papers, 
and the collection in Bishop Paine's possession, of which he made 
large but by no means exhaustive use in his Life of McKendree, 
came into the hands of Bishop McTyeire. Since his death, they 

(7) 



8 



Preface. 



have been, by his direction, in my custody. Some of these papers 
ought not to be published, and will be submitted to judicious per- 
sons who have the best right to a judgment and voice in their final 
disposition; many are reserved for future uses; a considerable 
number— such as the notes of the first Bishops' meeting ever held 
in the Methodist Episcopal Church, at Philadelphia, in 1826, and 
the official correspondence of the Bishops at that time — are here 
published for the first time. 

In this book, I do not pretend to have responded to a " \ongfelt 
want." Nor has anybody urged me to write. The truth is that 
all of us, preachers as well as people, grow more or less indifferent 
to such inquiries, until some crisis in the affairs of the Church, per- 
haps unexpected and perilous, reveals to us our careless, if not sin- 
ful, neglect. But there is real need for a work like this. Hence, 
under a sense of duty, and in default of a more competent hand 
(or, indeed, of any hand turned to this task) I have undertaken to 
fill a hitherto unoccupied place in the literature of American 
Methodism, whose importance cannot be exaggerated. I wish I 
could have done the work better. I have not reached my ideal. 
The time for investigation and composition has been snatched from 
the many and exacting duties of a busy pastorate in a large city; 
but, though I have coveted abundant leisure, to perfect the literary 
form, and to make it more worthy of the theme, I think, after re- 
peated review, that for « substance of doctrine," the book is about 
as good as I could make it. Otherwise, in this age of many books, 
I should have no right to publish it. 

Whenever it was possible, my method of composition has been to 
combine the sources, especially on the many disputed points, into a 
consistent narrative, whose simplicity and directness should be the 
warrant of its truth. Sometimes I have been able to show, by 
brief extracts from many independent sources, that but one. view 
could possibly represent the truth. For a time my mind inclined 
to the arrangement adopted by Gieseler, in his Church History, by 
which the evidence is thrown into footnotes; but this plan was 



Preface. 



9 



finally rejected as equally cumbersome and unnecessary. I have 
not been satisfied to write a chapter or a paragraph, however, until 
the results of a critical comparison of all the accessible sources and 
authorities had crystallized in a clear conception, definite, concrete, 
and satisfactory, at least to my own mind. Usually when in doubt, 
I have said so. But I have written under the growing conviction 
that in a work of this kind, the reader has a right to expect conclu- 
sions; and I have striven, without dogmatism or commentary un- 
warranted by the facts, to leave as few open questions behind me 
as possible. This general method has been adopted, because ( i ) 
it is the only conclusive one on points in dispute; (2) it is most 
satisfactory on all points to the critical reader, who is generally put 
in possession of sufficient evidence to test the validity of the conclu- 
sions arrived at; and (3) it is most entertaining to the general 
reader, who is thus afforded a pleasing variety. Occasionally, short 
excursions into the field of our general history have been indulged 
in; for, as Hallam observes, at some periods constitutional and 
general history nearly coincide. Presuming, however, upon the 
reader's familiarity with this outlying territory, I have, in general, 
confined the narrative to the strictly constitutional and govern- 
mental materials, which are rich and abundant. 

Perhaps it ought to be added, that I have sought to pursue these 
inquiries in a purely historical spirit. My aim has been first to get 
at the truth — sometimes a task of considerable difficulty — and then 
to tell it. No controversial aim or interest has consciously warped 
a judgment or shaded a statement. I have no disposition to con- 
ceal the fact that I am a member and minister of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South; but, as the whole period covered by this 
volume relates to the original, undivided household of our Ameri- 
can Methodist faith, and is the common birthright of the two 
Episcopal Methodisms, I trust that both the catholic spirit and the 
truthful letter of this history will commend themselves to my 
brethren of the Methodist Episcopal Church. It would be too 
much to hope that all the conclusions herein expressed will be 



io Preface. 

universally accepted; but it is not too much to expect that all 
lovers and seekers of truth will find in this work little to hinder 
and something to aid them in their search. 

Our constitutional epochs of 1773, when the first American 
Conference met; of 1784, when Mr. Wesley and the Christmas- 
Conference organized the Methodist Episcopal Church; of 1787, 
when the American Church asserted its autonomy; of 1792, when 
the first Quadrennial General Conference assembled; of i8o8 r 
when the Delegated General Conference and its Constitution came 
into existence; and of 1820-1828, when the constitutional govern- 
ment of the Methodist Episcopal Church underwent its first severe 
strain, have, of course, been treated with special fullness. In this 
last-mentioned period, the evidence, not hitherto accessible in its 
entirety, has constrained the conclusion that the sectional severance 
of American Methodism, on constitutional issues which still divide 
it, was really effected. The fifth volume of Dr. Stevens' able 
history of the Methodist Episcopal Church, which will cover the 
period beginning with 1820, is announced as almost ready. I am 
sorry not to be able to consult it before going to press. Important 
later matters in 1844 and down to 1892 — the centenary of the Gen- 
eral Conference — have been treated, where chronological order has 
been sacrificed to topical completeness. 

To Bishops Galloway and Hendrix, I must here express my ap- 
preciation of their kind encouragement. J. J. T. 

Kansas City, Mo., November 25, 1893. 



CONTENTS. 



BOOK I. 

ENGLISH METHODISM TO 1784. Page 

Chap. I. Origin of the Conference 15 

Chap. II. Shall Wesley's Powers Descend to the Conference 

or to a Designated Successor? 25 

Chap. III. Dr. Coke and the Deed of Declaration 36 

BOOK II. 

AMERICAN METHODISM TO 1784. 

Chap. IV. Beginnings of Methodism in America.. 47 

Chap. V. The First American Conference, 1773 58 

Chap. VI. The Annual Conferences to the Close of Rankin's 

Administration, 1777 71 

Chap. VII. Discord and Disunion: 1778-1780 94 

Chap. VIII. Peace and Prosperity: 1 781-1784 121 



Chap. IX. The Doctrinal Standards of Ecumenical Methodism. 139 



BOOK III. 

THE GRAND CLIMACTERIC TEAR: 1784. 

Chap. X. The Deed of Declaration and Wesley's Final Set- 
tlement of English Methodism 151 

Chap. XI. The Christmas Conference and Wesley's Final Set- 
tlement of Episcopal Methodism 161 

Chap. XII. The First Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal 

Church 20S 



BOOK IV. 

FROM THE CHRISTMAS CONFERENCE TO THE IN- 
STITUTION OF THE QUADRENNIAL 
GENERAL CONFERENCE. 

Chap. XIII. The Annual Conferences from 1785 to 1792 221 

Chap. XIV. The Council s 243 

(ii) 



12 



Contents. 



BOOK V. 

THE QUADRENNIAL GENERAL CONFERENCES TO 
THE INSTITUTION OF THE DELEGATED 



GENERAL CONFERENCE. Page 

Chap. XV. The General Conference of 1792 257 

Chap. XVI. The General Conference of 1796 267 

Chap. XVII. The General Conferences of 1800 and 1804 285 

Chap. XVIII. The General Conference of 1S08 297 

BOOK VI. 



THE DEL EG A TED GENERAL CONFERENCES OF THE 
UNDIVIDED METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 

Chap. XIX. The First and Second Delegated General Confer- 
ences, 1812 and 1816 327 

Chap. XX. The Third Delegated General Conference, and 
Mr. Soule's First Election to the Episcopacy, 
1820 338 

Chap. XXI. The Quadrennium, 1820-1824: the Contrasted Gov- 
ernments of the Two Episcopal Methodisms 364 

Chap. XXII. The Fourth and Fifth Delegated General Con- 
ferences, and the Intervening Quadrennium, 
1824-1828 381 

Chap. XXIII. The Sixth and Seventh Delegated General Con- 
ferences, 1832 and 1836: Conclusion 410 



BOOK L 



English Methodism to 1784. 

I. Origin of the Conference. 

II. Shall Wesley's Powers Descend to the Confer- 
ence or to a Designated Successor? 
III. Dr. Coke and the Deed of Declaration. 

(13) 



* 



CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY 

OF 

American Episcopal Methodism. 



CHAPTER I. 

ORIGIN OF THE CONFERENCE. 



SINCE 1744 the two constant factors of Methodist polity, 
(1) a superintending and appointing power, and (2) a 
consulting body called the Conference, have been continu- 
ously operative. 

These two factors are constitutional or elemental in the 
government of Methodism. The system itself changes as 
either of these elements changes or is variously combined 
with the other: the disappearance of either is the destruc- 
tion of the system. Something better might take its place, 
but it would be also something different. The peculiar 
economy of Methodism would cease to exist. 

The origin, development, history, and relations of these 
two factors, the former chiefly executive and the latter chiefly 
legislative, afford the principal, if not exclusive, materials 
for a constitutional history of Methodism, a task not hither- 
to accepted as the express province of any single work. It 
need hardly be added that our inquiry concerns itself alto- 
gether with polity and government and not at all with dogma 
and doctrine. 

With the development and definition of the powers and 
prerogatives of the Conference, with its President, Secre- 
tary, other officers, and committees, in English Methodism, 

(15) 



i6 



English Methodism to 1784.. 



after 1784, 44 the grand climacteric year of Methodism," * 
which gave a determinate and permanent status to both its 
English and American forms; or, at least, after 1791, the 
year of the great Founder's death, we have nothing to do in 
this volume. 

From 1739, the year of the rise of the United Society, to 
1 791, it may be said in general, the supreme superintending 
and appointing power, and the final legislative as well, in 
both Methodisms, English and American, resided in Mr. 
Wesley alone. Even when he appointed Coke and Asbury 
to their high office, Wesley had no thought of abandoning 
his own jurisdiction over the American province of his pa- 
triarchate. He was not only a scriptural episcopus (as he 
declared of himself ),t for purposes of ordination, but in point 
of power and its use a Bishop in fact, J freely exercising an 
absolute authority such as has scarcely ever, before or since, 
fallen to the lot of any one man. 

Mr. Wesley's uniform defense and justification of his pos- 
session and exercise of these extraordinary powers was that 
he was himself the creator, the sole author and finisher, of 
the system which gave rise to them ; and that all subordinate 
agents had voluntarily entered into a compact with him on 
stipulated and well-known conditions which they were free 
at any time to dissolve and annul. This absolutist, for such 
he was in fact and principle, planted himself squarely on the 
simple declaration that he was free to do what he would with 
his own. Whatever might be thought in our country and 
time of the expediency of such a personal government, his- 

*Dr. Whitehead, Life of Wesley, Amer. Ed., Boston, 1844, II. 248. 
j" Letter to Charles Wesley, Aug. 19, 1785: Tyerman, Life and Times, 
III. 444. 

J The first question in the American Minutes for 1789 is, "Who are the 
persons that exercise the episcopal office in the Methodist Church in Europe 
and America?" The answer is, "John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis 
Asbury." Tyerman adds (III. 437), "by regular order and succession," but 
these words do not occur in the editions of 181 3 and 1840 which lie before 
me. His authorities will appear later. Thus John Wesley was virtually 
dubbed " Bishop " two years before his death, despite his preference for 
"knave, fool, rascal, or scoundrel," vigorously expressed in September, 1788. 



Origin of the Conference. 



17 



tory has no other office than to record the fact. And wis- 
dom is justified of her children. How these supreme pow- 
ers of Mr. Wesley were modified in America after 1784 it 
will be a part of our task in the following pages to show. 

From 1739, the true epoch of Methodism,* as we have 
assumed, to 1744, the year of the assembling of the first 
Conference, Mr. Wesley embodied in himself, without limi- 
tations of any kind or degree, springing either from a funda- 
mental compact which bound or engaged him, or from the 
independent activities of personal agents, all controlling au- 
thority and power, of whatever nature, in Methodism. The 
calling of the Conference, though hardly a sharing of his 
powers, was his first movement toward a division of his 
burdens. 

John Wesley arrived in England from America February 
1, 1738, the day after George Whitefield had sailed for the 
continent Wesley had just left. His labors at Oxford and 
.elsewhere before he went abroad as a missionary with Gen- 
eral Oglethorpe, and his varied experiences as a parish 
priest in Georgia, while of intense personal interest and af- 
fording rich materials for a study of the man, have too 
remote a bearing upon his subsequent organization of Meth- 
odism in England and America to detain us here; his Amer- 
ican adventures, however, may briefly engage our attention 
when we come to notice the beginnings of Methodism in 
America. 



* In his Church Histoi-y, Wesley assigns other dates, as the founding o£ 
the Holy Club at Oxford in 1729, ten years before, or the meeting begun at 
Fetter-lane, May 1, 1738, by the advice of Peter Bohler; but his well-known 
introduction to the General Rules begins, " In the latter end of the year 1739 
eight or ten persons came to me in London, etc. . . . this was the 
rise of the United Society." The corner stone of the first Methodist chapel 
was laid in Bristol, May 12, 1739, and the Foundry was opened for public 
worship in London, Nov. 11, 1739. Wesley did not formally separate from 
the Moravians, however, until July 20, 1740, and Dr. Smith, in his History 
of Wesleyan Methodism, argues for this date. Tyerman seems to fix it 
three days later, at the first meeting of the seceders from the Moravians. 
Compare Stevens, History of Methodism, I. 124, 131, 132 and Tyerman, Life 
and Times of John Wesley, I. 282, 309, 310. 

2 



iS 



English Methodism to 



At a Moravian meeting in Aldersgate street, London, 
May 24, 1738, John Wesley experienced the grace of conver- 
sion. The servant became a son, and henceforth served 
in his Father's house with unremitting diligence. 

His genius for organization and government finds early 
illustration in an agreement with Messrs. Gambold and 
Robson touching Moravian affairs. There is much truth in 
that view of history which, renouncing drum and trumpet, 
regards it as an accurate portrayal of the life of the people ; 
but it verges on untruth when it disposes of epoch-makers 
and reformers as no more than the product of their times. 
History must indeed take account of the people, but its 
crises and changes, its free, fresh, full fountains are found 
in the biographies of its heroes. There can be no more in- 
teresting discovery than that of an influential system of 
thought or public policy as it lies in germ in the mind of a 
single person before it is put forth to mold the opinions or 
determine the actions of mankind. This little compact 
which Mr. Wesley drew up Nov. 12, 1739, embraces a 
sketch of what afterwards became (1) annual conferences, 
(2) quarterly meetings, (3) monthly advices of the progress 
of the work, and (4) systematic provision for its extension. 
Mr. Wesley says: 44 After much prayer and consultation 
we agreed: 1. To meet yearly in London, if God permit, 
on the eve of Ascension day. 2. To fix then the business 
to be done the ensuing year — where, when, and by whom. 
3. To meet quarterly there, as many as can; namely, on the 
second Tuesday in July, October, and January. 4. To send 
a monthly account to one another of what God hath done 
in each of our stations. 5. To inquire whether Mr. Hall, 
Sympson, Rogers, Ingham, Hutchins, Kinchin, Stonehouse, 
Cennick, Oxlee, and Brown will join us herein. 6. To con- 
sider whether there be any others of our spiritual friends 
who are able and willing so to do." * 

" But this plan," observes Dr. Whitehead, " was never 

*Tyerman, Life and Times of John Wesley, I. 281; Whitehead's Life of 
Wesley, II. 79, Amer. Ed., Boston, 1844. 



Origin of the Conference. 



*9 



put into execution." * The evening before this arrange- 
ment at Wycombe with Gambold and Robson, Mr. Wesley 
had preached to seven or eight thousand people in the 
Foundry at London; and on July 20, 1740, occurred his 
formal separation from the Moravians. 

Though the London Society, which has maintained an 
unbroken existence to this day, was organized in 1739, the 
first Yearly Conference did not convene until June 25, 1744. 
From that time until his death in 1791, Mr. Wesley held a 
Conference every year — forty-seven in all. 

This annual English Conference Mr. Wesley called into 
existence. He made it. It exercised such powers as he ac- 
corded to it. It was his organ created to answer his ends. 
Methodist government from this beginning has continued to 
be the combination of the two factors, a personal executive 
and a Conference, first of the preachers, " in connection 
with Mr. John Wesley," and then, in recent times, of min- 
isters and members. The system has found its mature ex- 
pression and full embodiment in America — in the Episcopacy 
and the General Conference. 

This first Conference, which met in the Foundry, London, 
consisted of six clergymen of the Church of England— the 
Revs. John Hodges, John Meriton, Henry Piers, and Sam- 
uel Taylor,t besides John and Charles Wesley — and four 
lay preachers, namely, Thomas Maxfield, Thomas Rich- 
ards, John Bennet, and John Downes. Of these four, three 
afterwards abandoned Wesley: Downes only lived and died 
a Methodist. 

June 24, the day before the opening of the Conference, 
a love-feast was held, at which the six English clergy 
were present, and the Lord's Supper was administered to 
the whole of the London Society, numbering more than two 
thousand members. The Conference was opened with 
prayer and a sermon by Charles Wesley, who baptized an 
adult, who there and then found peace with God. J 



* Life II. 79. t For notices of these clergymen, see Tyerman, I. 442. 
JTyerman, Life and Times of John Wesley, I. 443. 



20 



English Methodism to 1784. 



The proceedings of the Conference were conducted in 
the form of question and answer, which is still the canon- 
ical Methodist usage, and Mr. Wesley opened the matters to 
come before the body as follows : 

66 It is desired that all things be considered as in the imme- 
diate presence of God; that we meet with a single eye, and 
as little children, who have everything to learn; that every 
point which is proposed may be examined to the foundation; 
that every person may speak freely whatever is in his heart; 
and that every question which may arise should be thorough- 
ly debated and settled. 

44 ^. Need we be fearful of doing this? What are we 
afraid of? Of overturning our first principles? A. If they 
are false, the sooner they are overturned the better. If they 
are true, they will bear the strictest examination. Let us 
all pray for a willingness to receive light, to know of every 
doctrine whether it be of God. 

4 4 How may the time of the Conference be made 
more eminently a time of watching unto prayer? A . 1. 
While we are conversing, let us have an especial care to set 
God always before us. 2. In the intermediate hours let us 
visit none but the sick, and spend all the time that remains 
in retirement. 3. Let us therein give ourselves to prayer for 
one another, and for a blessing upon our labor. 

44 How far does each of us agree to submit to the 
judgment of the majority? A. In speculative things, each 
can only submit so far as his judgment shall be convinced. 
In every practical point, each will submit so far as he can 
without wounding his conscience. 

44 J$>_. Can a Christian submit any farther than this to any 
man, or number of men upon earth? A. It is undeniably 
certain he cannot; either to Bishop, Convocation, or Gen- 
eral Council. And this is that grand principle of private 
judgment on which all the reformers proceeded, 4 Every 
man must judge for himself ; because every man must give 
an account of himself to God.' " * 



*Mjles, Chron. Hist, of Meth., pp. 23, 24. 



Origin of the Conference. 



21 



The last two questions and answers assert the principles 
of Christian liberty which Methodism has always exemplified, 
but it might be inferred from the question about submitting 
to the majority that after debate decisions were made by 
vote of the Conference.* Such was not the case. The Con- 
ference debated, but the Chair decided. " Mr. Wesley was 
the government: and, though he invited the preachers to 
confer with him, he did not propose to abandon any of his 
original power. Thev had a voice by his permission, but 
he reserved the right to direct." f 

That the Conference was thus constituted and continued 
with no more power than Mr. Wesley allowed it is abundant- 
ly evident from a defense of his course which Mr. Wesley 
issued at the Conference in Leeds in 1766, twenty-two 
years later, and from a letter which he wrote as late as Jan- 
uary, 1780. In 1766 among other things he wrote: 

" In 1744 I wrote to several clergymen, and to all who 
then served me as sons in the gospel, desiring them to meet 
me in London, to give me their advice concerning the best 
method of carrying on the work of God. They did not de- 
sire this meeting; but / did, knowing that 4 in a multitude 
of counselors there is safety. 5 And when their number in- 
creased, so that it was neither needful nor convenient to in- 
vite them all, for several years I wrote to those with whom I 
desired to confer; and these only met at the place appointed, 
till at length I gave a general permission that all who desired 
it might come. Observe ! I myself sent for these, of my own 
free choice; and I sent for them to advise not govern me. 
Neither did I at any of those times divest myself of any part 
of that -power above described, which the providence of God 
had cast upon me without any design or choice of mine. 

" What is that power? It is a power of admitting into and 
excluding from the societies under my care; of choosing 

* Smith's "Disciplinary Minutes" of 1749, say, "How far does each of us 
agree to submit to the unanimous judgment of the rest?" (Hist. Weslejan 
Meth., I., 227-229.) 

■fNeely, Governing Conference in Methodism, pp. 9, 10. 



22 



English Methodism to 1784.. 



and removing stewards ; of receiving or of not receiving 
helpers; of appointing them when, where, and how to help 
me ; and of desiring any of them to meet me when I see 
good. And as it was merely in obedience to the providence 
of God and for the good of the people that I at first accept- 
ed this power, which I never sought — nay, a hundred times 
labored to throw off — so it is on the same considerations, 
not for profit, honor, or pleasure, that I use it at this day. 

" But several gentlemen are much offended at my having 
so much power. My answer to them is this : ' I did not 
seek any part of this power; it came upon me unawares. 
But when it was come, not daring to bury that talent, I used 
it to the best of my judgment; yet I never was fond of it. I 
always did, and do now, bear it as my burden — the burden 
which God lays upon me — and therefore I dare not yet lay 
it down.' But if you can tell me any one or any five men 
to whom I may transfer this burden, who can and will do 
just what I do now, I will heartily thank both them and you. 

" But some of our helpers say, 6 This is shackling free- 
born Englishmen? and demand a free Conference; that is, 
a meeting of all the preachers, wherein all things shall be 
determined by most votes. I answer: ' It is possible, after 
my death, something of this kind may take place; but not 
while I live. To me the preachers have engaged themselves 
to submit to serve me as sons in the gospel. But they are 
not thus engaged to any man, or number of men, besides. 
To me the people in general will submit. But they will not 
yet submit to any other.' It is nonsense, then, to call my 
using this 'power 4 shackling freeborn Englishmen.' None 
needs to submit to it unless he will; so there is no shackling 
in the case. Every preacher and every member may leave 
me when he pleases. But while he chooses to stay, it is on 
the same terms that he joined me at first." * 

In 1780, thirty-six years after the organization of the Con- 
ference, Wesley was not slow to defend the constitution he 

*Tyerman, Life and Times, II. 578, 579; Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., V. 
220, 221. 



Origin of the Conference, 



23 



had given it and under which it had continued to act. In a 
letter written in January of that year he says : 

" You seem likewise to have quite a wrong idea of a Con- 
ference. For above six years after my return to England 
there was no such thing. I then desired some of our preach- 
ers to meet me, in order to advise, not control me. And, 
you may observe, they had no power at all but what I exer- 
cised through them. I chose to exercise the power which 
God had given me in this manner, both to avoid ostentation 
and gently to habituate the people to obey them when I 
should be taken from their head. But as long as I remain 
with them, the fundamental rule of Methodism remains in- 
violate. As long as any preacher joins with me, he is to be 
directed by me in his work. Do not you see, then, that 
Brother M., whatever his intentions might be, acted as 
wrong as wrong could be ; and that the representing of this 
as the common cause of the preachers was the way to com- 
mon destruction — the way to turn all their heads and to set 
them in arms? It was a blow at the very root of Metho- 
dism. I could not, therefore, do less than I did; it was the 
very least that could be done, for fear that evil should 
spread." * 

In the Leeds deliverance of 1766, it is noteworthy (1) 
that Wesley expresses a willingness to share his powers and 
responsibilities, " if you can tell me any one or any five men 
to whom I may transfer this burden; " and (2) that he an- 
ticipates that a 44 free Conference," exercising his powers, 
may come into existence after his death. Already his mind 
was meditating provision for the perpetuity of Methodism 
after the personal bond which held it together should be 
dissolved. How this finally led to the enrollment of the 
Deed of Declaration in Chancery and the creation of the Le- 
gal Hundred we shall discover in following chapters. 

Having seen how the English Conference was constituted, 
with limited, advisory powers, during Mr. Wesley's life, it 
may be of interest, in concluding this chapter, to note briefly 



* Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., VII. 228. 



2 4 



English Methodism to 1784.. 



some of the doings, in matters governmental, of the first 
Conference in 1744. The three general heads of debate 
were, 1. What to teach; 2. How to teach; and 3. What 
to do, or how regulate discipline and practice. The doctri- 
nal conclusions of the Conference do not here concern us.* 

The Methodists were at this time divided into four sec- 
tions: (1) the united societies, (2) the bands, (3) the se- 
lect societies, and (4) the penitents. The united societies 
consisted of awakened persons, and it is worthy of note that 
from the beginning " seekers" have been eligible to mem- 
bership; the bands, of those who professed conversion; the 
select societies, of those from the bands who seemed to walk 
in the light: the penitents were the backsliders. The lay 
assistants were to expound; to meet the united societies, 
bands, select societies, and penitents once a week; to visit 
the classes quarterly, and to decide differences; to receive 
on trial and to put the disorderly back on trial; to see that 
stewards, leaders, schoolmasters, and housekeepers faithful- 
ly discharged their duties, and to meet the stewards and 
leaders weekly to audit their accounts. 

With reference to the Church of England, it was resolved 
to defend her doctrine, to obey the Bishops and canons as 
far as the Methodists conscientiously could; but to avoid to 
the utmost entailing a schism in the Church. f 

Such were the more important decisions in matters of pol- 
ity and administration reached in the first Methodist Con- 
ference of 1744. 

* See, however, Tyerman, I. 443, 444, and Smith, Hist, of Wesleyan Meth., 
I. 229. 

•j- Cf. Tyerman, I. 444-446. 



CHAPTER II. 



shall wesley's powers descend to the conference 
or to a designated successor? 



AT the twenty-sixth annual conference of English Meth- 
odism, which opened at Leeds, Aug. i. 1769. two im- 
portant measures were taken. 

The first concerned America: " We have a pressing call 
from our brethren at New York, who have built a preaching 
house, to come over and help them. Who is willing to go? " 
Answer: " Richard Boardman and Joseph Pilmoor." 
Question: " What can we do further in token of our broth- 
erly love? " Answer: " Letus now make a collection among 
ourselves. This was immediately done; and, out of it, £50 
were allotted towards the payment of the debt, and about 
£20 given to our brethren for their passage." 

It is, however, doubtful whether, as is commonly sup- 
posed, this was the first collection taken for the American 
Mission ; for six months before this Wesley had permitted 
Robert Costerdine, in charge of the Sheffield circuit, to 
read publiclv on any Sunday the letter which had been re- 
ceived from Xew York and to receive what the hearers 
were willing to give." * 

As the first important measure concerned the establish- 
ment of Methodism in America, so the second concerned its 
perpetuity in England. Friday. Aug. 4. Wesley read to the 
Conference the following paper: 

"My dear Brethren: 1. It has long been my desire, 
that all those ministers of our Church, [/. e.. ordained clergy 
of the Church of England] who believe and preach salva- 
tion bv faith, might cordiallv agree between themselves, and 
not hinder but help one another. After occasionally press- 

*Tverman. Life and Times, III. 4S. 

(25) 



26 



English Methodism to 1784, 



ing this, in private conversation, wherever I had opportunity, 
I wrote down my thoughts upon the head, and sent them to 
each in a letter. Out of fifty or sixty, to whom I wrote, 
only three vouchsafed me an answer. So I give this up. 
I can do no more. They are a rope of sand, and such they 
will continue. 

" 2. But it is otherwise with the traveling -preachers in 
our connection. You are at present one body. You act in 
concert with each other, and by united counsels. And now 
is the time to consider what can be done, in order to contin- 
ue this union. Indeed, as long as I live, there will be no 
great difficulty. I am, under God, a center of union to all 
our traveling, as well as local preachers. They all know me 
and my communication. They all love me for my works' 
sake; and, therefore, were it only out of regard to me, they 
will continue connected with each other. But by what means 
may this connection be preserved, when God removes me 
from you? 

"3. I take it for granted, it cannot be preserved, by any 
means, between those who have not a single eye. Those 
who aim at anything but the glory of God, and the salvation 
of men; who desire or seek any earthly thing, whether 
honor, profit, or ease, will not, cannot continue in the con- 
nection; it will not answer their design. Some of them, 
perhaps a fourth of the whole number, will procure prefer- 
ment in the Church. Others will turn Independents, and 
get separate congregations, like John Edwards and Charles 
Skelton. Lay your accounts with this, and be not surprised 
if some, you do not suspect, be of this number. 

"4. But what method can be taken, to preserve a firm 
union between those who choose to remain together? Per- 
haps you might take some such steps as these. On notice 
of my death, let all the preachers, in England and Ireland, 
repair to London within six weeks. Let them seek God by 
solemn fasting and prayer. Let them draw up articles of 
agreement, to be signed by those who choose to act in con- 
cert. Let those be dismissed, who do not choose it, in the 



Who Shall Inherit Wesley's Powers? 



27 



most friendly manner possible. Let them choose bv votes a 
committee of three, live, or seven, each of whom is to be 
moderator in his turn. Let the committee do what I do 
now: propose preachers to be tried, admitted, or excluded; 
fix the place of each preacher for the ensuing year, and the 
time of next conference. 

e< 5. Can anything be done now, in order to lav a founda- 
tion for this future union? Would it not be well, for any 
that are willing, to sign some articles of agreement before 
God calls me hence? Suppose something like these: 

64 'We, whose names are underwritten, being thoroughly 
convinced of the necessity of a close union between those 
whom God is pleased to use as instruments in this glorious 
work, in order to preserve this union between ourselves, are 
resolved, God being our helper: ( 1) To devote ourselves en- 
tirely to God : denying ourselves, taking up our cross daily, 
steadily aiming at one thing, to save our own souls, and 
them that hear us. (2) To preach the old Methodist doc- 
trines, and no other, contained in the minutes of the Confer- 
ences. (3) To observe and enforce the whole Methodist 
discipline, laid down in the said minutes.' " * 

In view of the obligation to preach the doctrines and to 
enforce the discipline contained in the Minutes, the preach- 
ers present wisely suggested to Air. Wesley a publication 
embodying Methodist doctrine and discipline, as contained 
in the Minutes of the twenty-six yearly Conferences, to be 
sent to every ;i assistant," or preacher in charge of a circuit, 
to be bv him communicated to all the " helpers," or junior 
preachers, in his work. In 1753 Mr. Wesley had issued the 
first collection of this sort, made up of extracts from the 
Minutes to date. This is known as the first edition of " The 
Laro;e Minutes." A second edition, containing the added 
legislation of the succeeding ten years, was issued in 1763.T 
This request of the preachers at the Leeds Conference of 

*Tyerman, Life and Times, III. 49. 50. 

fTyerman, II. 474-479. gives all the differences between the edition of 
1753 and that of 1763 of "The Large Minutes." 



28 



English Methodism to 1784.. 



1769 Mr. Wesley satisfied the following year when he issued 
the third edition of " The Large Minutes," an octavo pam- 
phlet of sixty pages, entitled " Minutes of Several Conversa- 
tions between the Rev. Messrs. John and Charles Wesley 
and Others," which included the minutes of Conferences 
down to 1770.* 

This plan of Mr. Wesley's for the perpetuity of Metho- 
dism, embodying as it did a permanent doctrinal and disci- 
plinary basis of union, as well as a central committee of con- 
trol, w r as ordered inserted in the Minutes, after having re- 
ceived, as Dr. Whitehead thinks, the signatures of many of 
the preachers at the Conference of 1769. Mr. Wesley held 
the plan in suspense for some years, but brought it forward 
again at the Conferences of 1773, 1774? and 1775, when it 
received the signatures of all the preachers present at these 
sessions, more than one hundred in all. f 

Thus for six years Mr. Wesley's deliberations led him to 
abide by this plan as the best he could devise. Dr. White- 
head more than hints that since the plan provided simply for 
the perpetual union of Methodism on the original basis, 
namely, not as a dissenting body, but as a society with un- 
ordained lay preachers, dependent upon the Church of En- 
gland and her friendly clergy for the sacraments, the more 
ambitious Wesleyan leaders were not satisfied to be thus 
bound after Mr. Wesley's death. " Some years afterwards, 
[after 1769] " says the Doctor, " the mystery of innova- 
tions began to work secretly in the minds of several of the 
preachers who hoped to exalt themselves above all that had 
been known before among them. They knew Mr. Wesley 
did, and would let, or hinder, till he was taken out of the 
way: they had influence enough, however, to prevail upon 
him to relinquish the present plan, and leave the mode 
of union among the preachers after his death, to their 
own deliberations. "J The plan was relinquished; but 



*Tyerman, III. 80. 

-f- Stevens, Hist, of Meth., I. 442. 

£ Whitehead, Life of Weslej, II. 193. Compare the footnotes on p. 192. 



Who Shall Inherit Wesley's Powers f 



29 



Dr. Whitehead's testimony as to how, when, and why is 
doubtful. i 

Stevens is content to dismiss this proposal with the re- 
mark that it was superseded by the final plan of Wesley's 
Deed of Declaration recorded in Chancery.* So it was. 
But this Deed was not drawn until 1784, nine years after the 
original plan was last offered for signatures in the Confer- 
ence. We are thus thrown back upon Whitehead's sur- 
mises and suspicious allegations, for a possible explanation. 
Dr. Neely imagines "that perhaps it had some applica- 
tion to Wesley's de sire that the Rev. John Fletcher, vicar 
of Madelev. should be his active assistant during his old 
age, and his probable successor in the Methodist leadership 
after his decease," but finally concludes that i4 the points do 
not fit." f 

But to the Rev. Jean Guillaume de la Flechiere — John 
William Fletcher — saint and scholar, pietist and polemic, 
(born 1729. died 17S5, six years before Wesley) and Wes- 
ley's other scheme of a personal successor, we must now 
turn our attention. Whitehead, after mentioning in lan- 
guage none too friendly that Wesley bv general suffrage had 
acted as :i dictator,''* continues: "He had often found that 
all his authority was barely sufficient to preserve peace, and 
the mere external appearance of unanimity, and therefore 
concluded, that if his authority- were to cease, or not to be 
transferred to another at his death, the preachers and peo- 
ple would fall into confusion, "i Hence the letter following, 
which Wesley wrote to Fletcher in January, 1773, from 
Shoreham, whither he had doubtless gone to take counsel 
with the venerable Perronet: 

"Dear Sir: What an amazing work has God wrought in 
these kingdoms in less than forty years ! And it not only 
continues, but increases throughout England, Scotland, and 
Ireland; nay. it has lately spread into New York, Pennsyl- 
vania. Virginia, Maryland, and Carolina. But the wise 



*Hist. of Me:h„ I. 442. f Neely, Gov. Conf. in Meth., p. 26. 

j Whitehead, Life, II. 217. 



3° 



English Methodism to 1784. 



men of the world say: ' When Mr. Wesley drops, then all 
this is at an end.' And so it surely will, unless, before God 
calls him hence, one is found to stand in his place. For 

'Ovk ayaOov TToXvKoipavir}' et? KOLpavos eo-rw.* 

I see more and more, unless there be one TCpoea&tg, the work 
can never be carried on. The body of the preachers are 
not united, nor will any part of them submit to the rest; so 
that there must be one to preside over all, or the work will 
indeed come to an end. 

" But who is sufficient for these things? Qualified to 
preside both over the preachers and people ? He must be a 
man of faith and love, and one that has a single eye to the 
advancement of the kingdom of God. He must have a 
clear understanding; a knowledge of men and things, par- 
ticularly of the Methodist doctrine and discipline; a ready 
utterance; diligence and activity; with a tolerable share of 
health. There must be added to these, favor with the peo- 
ple, with the Methodists in general. For unless God turn 
their eyes and their hearts toward him, he will be quite in- 
capable of the work. He must likewise have some degree 
of learning; because there are many adversaries, learned as 
well as unlearned, whose mouths must be stopped. But this 
cannot be done unless he be able to meet them on their 
own ground. 

" But has God provided one so qualified? Who is he? 
Thou art the man ! God has given you a measure of loving 
faith, and a single eye to his glory. He has given you some 
knowledge of men and things, particularly of the whole plan 
of Methodism. You are blessed with some health, activity, 
and diligence, together with a degree of learning. And to 
all these he has lately added, by a way none could have fore- 
seen, favor both with the preachers and the whole people. 
Come out, in the name of God ! Come to the help of the 
Lord against the might}M Come, while I am alive and ca- 
pable of labor — 



* " It is not good that supreme power should be lodged in many hands : 
let there be one governor." 



Who Shall Inherit Wesley's Powers? 



3* 



" ' Dum superest Lachesi quod torqueat, et pedibus me 
Porto meis, nullo dextram subeunte bacillo.' * 

44 Come, while I am able, God assisting, to build you up 
in the faith, to ripen your gifts, and to introduce you to the 
people. Nil tanti. What possible employment can you 
have which is of so great importance ? 

4 4 But you will naturally say : 4 I am not equal to the task ; 
I have neither grace nor gifts for such an employment.' 
You say true; it is certain you have not — and who has? 
But do you not know Him who is able to give them ? Per- 
haps not at once; but rather day by day: as each is, so shall 
your strength be. 4 But this implies,' you may say, * a thou- 
sand crosses, such as I feel I am not able to bear.' 

44 You are not able to bear them now, and they are not 
now come. Whenever they do come, will He not send 
them in due number, weight, and measure? And will they 
not all be for your profit, that you may be a partaker of His 
holiness? 

44 Without conferring, therefore, with flesh and blood, 
come and strengthen the hands, comfort the heart, and share 
the labors of your affectionate friend and brother, 

44 John Wesley." f 

44 This was a momentous proposal," adds Tyerman, and 
asks, 44 Why was it not made to Wesley's brother? " This 
seems to have been Fletcher's thought, also, but such co- 
nundrums it is hardly the province of history to answer. 
Dr. Whitehead indulges in some uncharitable and unfound- 
ed surmises as to the grounds of Fletcher's refusal: he does 
not appear to have known that Fletcher ever sent the reply 
which is here appended : 

44 Madeley, 6th February, 1773. 
"Reverend and Dear Sir : I hope the Lord, who has so 
wonderfully stood by you hitherto, will preserve you to see 

* While Lachesis has some thread of life to spin, and I walk on my own 
feet without the help of a staff. (Juvenal, Sat. iii.) 

-j- Whitehead's Life of Wesley, II. 217-219; Tyerman, Life and Times, 
III. 147, 148; Smith, Hist, of Wesleyan Meth., I. 487-489. 



32 



English Methodism to 1784.. 



many of your sheep, and me among the rest, enter into rest. 
Should Providence call you first, I shall do my best, by the 
Lord's assistance, to help your brother to gather the wreck 
and keep together those who are not absolutely bent upon 
throwing away the Methodist doctrine or discipline. Every 
little help will then be necessary, and I hope I shall not be 
backward to throw in my mite. 

"In the meantime, you stand sometimes in need of an 
assistant to serve tables and occasionally to fill up a gap. 
Providence visibly appointed me to that office many years 
ago; and though it no less evidently called me hither, yet I 
have not been without doubt, especially for some years past, 
whether it would not be expedient that I should resume my 
place as your deacon ; not with any view of presiding over 
the Methodists after you (God knows!), but to save you a 
little in your old age, and be in the way of receiving, and 
perhaps of doing, more good. I have sometimes considered 
how shameful it was that no clergyman should join you to 
keep in the Church the work which the Lord had enabled 
you to carry on therein; and, as the little estate I have in 
my native country is sufficient for my maintenance, I have 
thought I would one day or other offer you and the Metho- 
dists my free services. 

66 While my love of retirement, and my dread of appear- 
ing upon a higher stage than that I stand upon here, make 
me linger, I was providentially called to do something in 
Lady Huntingdon's plan; but being shut out there, it ap- 
pears to me that I am again called to my first work. 

" Nevertheless, I would not leave this place without a 
fuller persuasion that the time is quite come. Not that God 
uses me much now among my parishioners, but because I 
have not sufficiently cleared my conscience from the blood 
of all men, especially with regard to ferreting out the poor, 
and expostulating with the rich, who make it their business 
to fly from me. In the meantime, it shall be my employ- 
ment to beg the Lord to give me light, and make me willing 
to go anywhere or nowhere, to be anything or nothing. 



Who Shall Inherit Wesley' s Powers f 



33 



64 I have laid my pen aside for some time: nevertheless, I 
resumed it last week, at your brother's request, to go on 
with my treatise on Christian perfection. I have made some 
alterations in the sheets you have seen, and hope to have a 
few more readv for your correction, against the time you 
come this way. How deep is the subject ! What need 
have I of the Spirit, to search the deep things of God ! 
Help me by your prayers, till you can help me by word of 
mouth. 

££ I am. reverend and dear sir. vour willing, though un- 
profitable, servant in the gospel, 

"John Fletcher." * 
In Julv following Wesley renewed his invitation in a per- 
sonal interview with Fletcher and soon after wrote him as 
follows : 

"Lewisham, July 21, 1773. 
"Dear Sir : It was a great satisfaction to me that I had 
the opportunity, which I so long desired, of spending a little 
time with you; and I really think it would answer many 
gracious designs of Providence were we to spend a little 
more time together. It might be of great advantage, both 
to ourselves and the people, who may otherwise soon be as 
sheep without a shepherd. You say, indeed, 'whenever it 
pleases God to call me away, you will do all you can to help 
them.' But will it not then be too late? You may then ex- 
pect grievous wolves to break in on every side, and many 
to arise from among themselves speaking perverse things. 
Both the one and the other stand in awe of me. and do not 
care to encounter me: so that I am able, whether they will 
or no. to deliver the flock into your hands. But no one 
else is: and it seems this is the very time when it may be 
done with the least difficulty. Just now the minds of the 
people in general are, on account of the Checks, greatly 
prejudiced in vour favor. Should we not discern the prov- 
idential time? Should we stay till the impression is worn 
awav? Just now we have an opportunity of breaking the 



*Tverman, Life and Times, III. 149: quoted from Moore's Life, II. 259. 
3 



34 



English Methodism to 1784.. 



ice, of making a little trial. Mr. Richardson is desirous of 
making an exchange with you, and spending two or three 
weeks at Madeley. This might be done either now or in 
October, when I hope to return from Bristol; and until 
something of this kind is done you will not have that oropyri 
for the people which alone can make your labor light in 
spending and being spent for them. Methinks 'tis pity we 
should lose any time ; for what a vapor is life ! 

" I am, dear sir, your affectionate friend and brother, 

John Wesley." * 

Wesley once more, in January, 1776, invited Fletcher to 
accompany him on his tours through England and Scotland, 
but, under date of January 9, Fletcher makes a decisive an- 
swer: " I received last night the favor of yours from Bristol. 
My grand desire is to be just what the Lord would have me 
be. I could, if you wanted a traveling assistant, accompa- 
ny you, as my little strength would admit, in some of your 
excursions; but your recommending me to the societies, as 
one who might succeed you, (should the Lord call you hence 
before me,) is a step to which I could by no means consent. 
It would make me take my horse and gallop away. Be- 
sides, such a step would, at this juncture, be, I think, pe- 
culiarly improper, and would cast upon my vindication of 
your minutes such an odium as the Calvinists have endeav- 
ored to cast upon your 'Address.' It would make people 
suspect, that what I have done for truth and conscience 
sake, I have done with a view of being, what Mr. Toplady 
calls, 6 the bishop of Moorfields.' We ought to give as little 
hold to the evil surmising and rash judgments of our oppo- 
nents as may be. If, nevertheless, Providence throws in 
your way a clergyman willing to assist us, it would be well 
to fall in with that circumstance." f 

Thus this project of designating a personal successor who 
should discharge, at least in some measure, Mr. Wesley's 
functions, came to naught. The plan of union on the basis 
of the " old Methodist doctrine " and the " whole Methodist 



*Tyerman, III. 150. |See the whole letter in Tyerman, III. 212, 213. 



Who Shall Inherit Wesley's Powers? 



35 



discipline " was presented for signatures for the last time, as 
we have seen, at the Conference of 1775. For the reasons, 
possibly, assigned by Dr. Whitehead, or for others now un- 
known, it seems to have been abandoned. It was excellent 
as far as it went, and Mr. Wesley at this time probably re- 
garded this conferential compact as binding until something 
better could be provided. In March, 1776, Mr. Wesley 
was seventy-three years old : it was high time that adequate 
provision for the perpetuity of Methodism were made. 
Both of his schemes, whether they were intended to be in- 
dependent or in some way to be combined, as might have 
very well been done, had so far issued in no sufficient and 
final relief. An efficient personal superintendent, to whom 
preachers and people would yield a willing obedience, had 
not been secured; and the Conference had not been organ- 
ized into a center of unity and government. 



CHAPTER III. 



THOMAS COKE AND THE DEED OF DECLARATION. 



ABOUT the time that Fletcher's health, never robust, be- 
gan to fail finally, Providence sent to Mr. Wesley, in- 
stead of his ardently desired and persistently designated suc- 
cessor, that remarkable young man whom he fondly regarded 
as his ' 4 right hand " — the Rev. Thomas Coke, LL.D. (born 
1747, died 1814), the first Bishop of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church in America, and Mr. Wesley's chosen and ac- 
credited deputy in its organization. Forty-four years the 
junior of his chief, active, intelligent, devoted, vigilant, 
pious, he seemed at last the man for the hour. 

Tuesday, Aug. 19, 1777, Mr. Wesley records in his 
Journal: " I went forward to Taunton with Dr. Coke who, 
being dismissed from his curacy, has bid adieu to his hon- 
orable name, and determined to cast in his lot with us." * 
The little Doctor — for he was small of stature, like Wesley 
himself — attended the Methodist Conference this year at 
Bristol, but, for unknown reasons (conjectured, however, 
by Samuel Drew, his biographer, to be connected with Mr. 
Wesley's supposed desire to retain him near his own person, 
lest the possible tender of preferment in the Establishment 
might entice him away from the Methodists before he was 
irrevocably committed to their cause)! his name does not 
appear in the Minutes until 1778, when he was appointed to 
labor in London, where he became superintendent of the 
circuit in 1780, about which time he also began to alternate 
with Mr. Wesley in annual visits to Ireland. In 1782 he 
was deputed to preside at the first Irish Conference, held in 



* Wesley's Journal, Amer. Ed., II. 477. 
I Drew, Life of Coke, Amer. Ed., p. 40. 

(36) 



Thomas Coke and the Deed of Declaration. 



37 



the city of Dublin,* as subsequently, in 1784, he presided in 
the great American organizing Conference, commonly, but 
mistakenly, called the first General, at Baltimore. 

At the English Conference of 1782, Coke took the most 
prominent part in steps toward the final and legal settlement 
of the title-deeds of the Methodist chapels, about which 
considerable difficulties, legal and other, to be more partic- 
ularly described hereafter, had arisen. 

At a very early period, Wesley published a model deed 
for the satisfactory settlement of chapels, the chief provisions 
of which were these two, namely: (1) The trustees were to 
permit Wesley himself and his appointees from the confer- 
ence to have the free and undisturbed use of such chapels, for 
the purpose of preaching God's holy word therein — on Wes- 
ley's decease his rights were to descend to his brother Charles, 
and in case of the latter's death, to the Rev. William Grim- 
shaw (a Yorkshire clergyman and graduate of Cambridge, 
who united with the Methodists in 1745, but died as early as 
1763); (2) After the decease of these three clergymen — 
the Wesleys and Grimshaw — the chapels were to be held in 
trust for the sole use of the persons appointed at the Yearly 
Conference of the People called Methodists, fa'ovided that 
these appointees preached no other doctrines than those 
contained in Wesley's Notes on the New Testament and in 
his four volumes of Sermons. f 

The origin and history of this deed is thus given by Mr. 
Wesley himself, under date of Jan. 3, 1783: 

"4. I built the first Methodist preaching house, so called, 
at Bristol, in the year 1739. And knowing no better, I suf- 
fered the deed of trust to be drawn up in the Presbyterian 
form. But Mr. Whitefield hearing of it, wrote me a warm 
letter, asking, * Do you consider what you do? If the 
trustees are to name the preachers, they may exclude even 
you from preaching in the house you have built ! Pray let 
this deed be immediately canceled.' To this the trustees 
readily agreed. Afterward I built the preaching houses in 



*Drew, Life of Coke, pp. 49, 50. |Tyerman, Life and Times. III. 417. 



38 



English Methodism to 1784. 



Kingswood, and at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. But none beside 
myself had any right to appoint the preachers in them. 

4 '5. About this time a preaching house was built at Bir- 
stal, by contributions and collections. And John Nelson, 
knowing no better, suffered a deed to be drawn in the Pres- 
byterian form, giving twelve or thirteen persons power not 
only of placing, but even of displacing, the preachers at 
their pleasure. Had Mr. Whitefield or I known this, we 
should have insisted on its either being canceled, like that 
at Bristol, or so altered as to insure the application of the 
house to the purpose for which it was built, without giving 
so dangerous a power to any trustees whatever. 

" 6. But a considerable difficulty still remained. As the 
houses at Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle were my prop- 
erty, a friend reminded me, that they were all liable to de- 
scend to my heirs. (Pray let those consider this, who are 
so fond of having preaching houses vested in them and 
their heirs forever!) I was struck, and immediately pro- 
cured a form to be drawn up by three of the most eminent 
counselors in London, whereby not only these houses, but 
all the Methodist houses hereafter to be built, might be set- 
tled on such a plan, as would secure them, so far as human 
prudence could, from the heirs of the proprietors, for the 
purpose originally intended." * 

In 1784, the date of the Deed of Declaration, there were 
according to Myles (Chronological History) three hundred 
and fifty-nine Methodist chapels in the United Kingdom, 
most of which, it may be presumed, were settled according 
to the provisions of this " model deed."t Mr. Pawson de- 
clares^ that from the year 1750 all Methodist chapels were 
held according to the conditions of this deed; but there 
were certainly some exceptions, as Nelson's original Pres- 
byterian deed to the Birstal chapel, to which Mr. Wesley 
refers above, and about which trouble arose, was drawn and 

* Wesley's Works, Amer. ed., VII. 326, 327, " Case of Birstal House." 
-f-Tyerman, III. 417, 418. 

J MS. memoir of Dr. Whitehead; see Tyerman, III. 420. 



Thomas Coke and the Deed of Declaration. 



39 



dated in 175 1. Still with the model deed itself there was 
dissatisfaction among the " wisest and best preachers,' ' and 
at the Conference of 1767 the question was raised, "Are 
our preaching houses settled in our form safe? Should we 
not have the opinion of a counsel?" To these inquiries 
Mr. Wesley replied: "I think not. 1. Because the form 
was drawn up by three eminent counselors. But, 2. It is 
the way of every counsel to blame what another counsel has 
done ; but you cannot at all infer that they think it wrong be- 
cause they say so. 3. If they did in reality think it wrong, 
that would not prove that it was so. 4. If there was ( which I 
do not believe) some defect therein, who would go to law 
with the body of Methodists? 5. And if they did, would 
any court in England put them out of possession, especially 
when the intent of the deed is plain and undeniable. * 

But this reasoning, plausible as it was, did not long satis- 
fy the preachers, especially Messrs. Hampson and Oddie, 
who, according to Pawson, "were men of remarkably deep 
understanding and sound judgment." Wesley began to 
yield, and various schemes were proposed. One was to con- 
solidate all the chapels of Methodism into a general trust. 
Another was to have all the deeds brought to London and 
deposited in a strong box provided for the purpose: many 
were actually sent and, in consequence, some were lost.f 

In 1782 the chapel at Birstal was rebuilt or enlarged and 
a new deed, for various reasons, detailed by Tyerman, was 
prepared, "which," says Wesley, " like the old [of 1751], 
gave a few persons the power of placing and displacing the 
preachers at their pleasure. This was brought and read to 
me at Daw Green. As soon as ever I heard it, I vehe- 
mently objected to it, and positively refused to sign it. . . . 
But in the evening several persons came again, and im- 
portunately urged me to sign it; averring that it was the 
same in effect with the old deed, and the old deed could not 
be altered. Not adverting that it was altered in the new 

* Tyerman, III. 420; Neely, Governing Conference in Methodism, p. 49. 
fTyerman, III. 420, 421. 



4° 



English Methodism to 1784. 



one, I, at length, unwillingly complied."* This new deed 
was dated May 14, 1782, and, says Tyerman, " was widely 
different from that of 1751, and, as the vice-chancellor ruled 
in 1854, so ^ ar as ^ Purported to vary the trusts of the latter 
deed, it was void and of no effect, but it still contained the 
obnoxious clause, giving power to other parties than Wes- 
ley's Conference to appoint the preachers. "f 

Wesley, now an old man nearly eighty, had committed a 
blunder, shared in, however, by others. There was no pre- 
dicting whereunto this thing might grow. The whole mat- 
ter came up for review and settlement at the Conference of 
1782, whose deliverance was explicit and decisive: "If the 
trustees still refuse to settle it on the Methodist plan ; if they 
still insist that they will have the right of placing and displac- 
ing the preachers at their pleasure, — then, First, let a plain 
statement of the case be drawn up. Secondly, let a collec- 
tion be made throughout all England in order to purchase 
ground, and build another preaching house as near the pres- 
ent as may be." % 

The execution of this mandate of Conference was entrust- 
ed to Dr. Coke, who was at the same time directed to travel 
throughout England to see that all the chapels were settled 
according to the Conference plan. He promptly issued an 
"Address to the Inhabitants of Birstal," etc., in which, by 
way of a " plain statement " he narrates the history of their 
chapel deed and notifies them that he had been delegated to 
execute the Conference minute. It was a vital issue and 
a critical time. Methodism had reached the forks of the 
road; Congregationalism or connexionalism, if not the per- 
petuity of Methodism itself, hung upon the issue. Wesley 
wrote to Bradford, " Birstal is a leading case, the first of 
an avowed violation of our plan; therefore the point must 
be carried for the Methodist preachers now or never, and 
I alone can carry it, which I will, God being my help- 
er." In the paper on the Birstal House already cited, 



* Wesley's Works, VII. 327. j Lif e and Times, III. 374, 375. 

% Wesley's Works, VII. 327. 



Thomas Coke and the Deed of Declaration. 41 



issued January 3, 1783, he lucidly discloses the evils which 
must arise from allowing such powers to trustees. 

" Itinerant preaching is no more. When the trustees in 
any place have found and fixed a preacher they like, the ro- 
tation of preachers is at an end; at least, till they are tired 
of their favorite preacher, and so turned him out. While he 
stays, is not the bridle in his mouth? How dares he speak 
the full and the whole truth, since, whenever he displeases 
the trustees, he is liable to lose his bread? How much less 
will he dare to put a trustee, though ever so ungodly, out of 
the society! ... I am not pleading my own cause. 
. . . I am pleading for Mr. Taylor, Mr. Bradburn, Mr. 
Benson, and for every other traveling preacher, that you 
may be as free, after I am gone hence, as you are now I 
am at your head ; that you may never be liable to be turned 
out of any or all of our houses without any reason given, but 
that so is the pleasure of twenty or thirty men. 
I insist upon that point, and let everything else go. No 
Methodist trustees, if I can help it, shall, after my death, any 
more than while I live, have the power of placing and dis- 
placing the preachers."* 

The final result of this agitation was that a new deed was 
made, " giving the Conference power to appoint the preach- 
ers; and this serious hubbub, fro tern., subsided."! Dr. 
Coke had actually purchased ground for the site of a new 
chapel, according to the direction of the Conference, and 
one reason why the trustees had claimed extraordinary pow- 
ers was because of a debt of £350 on their new chapel, 
which they had advanced the money to pay. Wesley of- 
fered to relieve them of their debt and to present them with 
the ground Coke had bought, if they would make a satisfac- 
tory deed, which, according to the opinion of Mr. Maddocks, 
an eminent attorney, they were competent to do. Mr. Jo- 
seph Charlesworth, one of the trustees, in finally accepting 
Mr. Wesley's offer on behalf of his brethren, naively wrote : 

* Wesley's Works, VII. 328. 

-j-Tyerman, III. 382. See the whole account, III. 373-382. 



4 2 



English Methodism to 1784.. 



66 We cannot but acknowledge your goodness in promising 
the land, and the money towards paying our debt, which 
will be two very convenient articles at this place, as we are 
in great want of both." 

But this Birstal trouble of 1782 led to a critical inquiry 
into the merits of the model deed itself, which had, hitherto, 
been adjudged sufficient. Was the 66 Yearly Conference of 
the People called Methodists" such a body as possessed a 
legal existence? Could it be legally described and legally 
identified? Of what followed Dr. Coke himself tells us in 
his "Address to the Methodist Society in Great Britain and 
Ireland on the settlement of the Preaching houses" : 

66 In the Conference held in the year 1782 several com- 
plaints were made in respect to the danger in which we 
were situated from the want of specifying, in distinct and 
legal terms, what was meant by the term, * The Conference 
of the People called Methodists.' Indeed, the preachers 
seemed universally alarmed, and many expressed their fears 
that divisions would take place among us after the death of 
Mr. Wesley on this account; and the whole body of preach- 
ers present seemed to wish that some methods might be 
taken to remove this danger, which appeared to be pregnant 
with evils of the first magnitude. 

"In consequence of this (the subject lying heavy on my 
heart), I desired Mr. Clulow, of Chancery Lane, London, 
to draw up such a case as I judged sufficient, and then to 
present it to that very eminent counselor, Mr. Maddocks, 
for his opinion. This was accordingly done, and Mr. Mad- 
docks informed us, in his answer, that the deeds of our 
preaching houses were in the situation we dreaded ; that the 
law would not recognize the Conference in the state in 
which it stood at that time, and, consequently, that there 
was no central point which might preserve the connection 
from splitting into a thousand pieces after the death of Mr. 
Wesley. To prevent this, he observed that Mr. Wesley 
should enroll a deed in chancery, which deed should spec- 
ify the persons by name who composed the Conference, to- 



Thomas Coke and the Deed of Declaration. 43 



gether with the mode of succession for its perpetuity; and 
at the same time such regulations be established by the deed 
as Mr. Wesley would wish the Conference should be gov- 
erned by, after his death. 

This opinion of Mr. Maddocks I read in the Conference 
of 1783- The whole Conference seemed grateful to me for 
procuring the opinion, and expressed their wishes that such 
a deed might be drawn up and executed by Mr. Wesley as 
should agree with the advice of that great lawyer, as soon 
as possible. 

" Soon after the Conference was ended, Mr. Wesley au- 
thorized me to draw up, with the assistance of Mr. Clulow, 
all the leading parts of a deed which should answer the 
above mentioned purposes. This we did with much care, 
and as to myself I can truly say with fear and trembling, 
receiving Mr. Maddocks' advice in respect to every step we 
took, and laying the whole ultimately at Mr. Wesley's feet 
for his approbation; there remained now nothing but to in- 
sert the names of those who were to constitute the Confer- 
ence. Mr. Wesley then declared that he would limit the 
number to one hundred. This was indeed contrary to my 
very humble opinion, which was, that every preacher, in 
full connection, should be a member of the Conference; 
and that admission into full connection should be looked 
upon as admission into membership with the Conference ; 
and I still believe it will be most for the glory of God, and 
the peace of our Zion, that the members of the Conference 
admit the other preachers who are in full connection, and 
are present at the Conference from time to time, to a full 
vote on all occasions. However, of course, I submitted to 
the superior judgment and authority of Mr. Wesley." * 

This was the origin of, and this Dr. Coke's agency in pro- 
curing, the Magna Charta of English Methodism, the fa- 
mous Deed of Declaration, dated Feb. 28, 1784: the further 
consideration of which, with the temporary troubles and last- 
ing blessings which grew out of it, we defer to our account 



* Drew, Life of Coke, pp, 47, 48, 



44 



English Methodism to 1784.. 



of 4 4 the grand climacteric year." The Deed has stood the 
test of litigation, and the strain and stress of changing times 
and conditions: it remains to this day the sufficient instru- 
ment which has conserved and prospered the best interests 
of English Methodism. For no act of his life, perhaps, was 
Mr. Wesley more severely or more generally maligned: no 
single deed of his has, perhaps, proved more signally bene- 
ficial to his British followers. Time and experience have 
brought a complete vindication of the wisdom of the inde- 
pendent course which he pursued. 



BOOK II. 

American Methodism to 1784. 

I. Beginnings of Methodism in America. 
II. The First American Conference. 

III. The Annual Conferences to the Close of Ran- 

kin's Administration, 1777. 

IV. Discord and Disunion: 1778-1780. 
V. Peace and Prosperity: 1 781-1784. 

(45) 



CHAPTER IV. 



BEGINNINGS OF METHODISM IN AMERICA. 



THE Founder of Methodism resided in America as a cler- 
gyman of the Church of England, with Georgia for his 
parish, from Feb. 5, 1736, to Dec. 22, 1737. With his broth- 
er Charles, Benjamin Ingham, and Charles Delamotte, (who 
was his constant and intimate companion throughout the pe- 
riod of his American sojourn,) he landed at Savannah, Ga., 
on the former date, having set sail from England, Oct. 14, 
1735. Charles Wesley, who was Oglethorpe's secretary, 
and Ingham, set out with the General to found Frederica; 
while John Wesley and Delamotte remained at Savannah, • 
lodging for the time with Spangenberg, Nitschmann, and 
other Moravians. Wesley began his ministry at Savannah 
March 7, 1736, with a sermon on 1 Cor. xiii. 3. 

Oxford Methodism, with its shining excellencies but seri- 
ous defects, "misty, austere, gloomy, and forbidding," but 
"intensely sincere, earnest, and self-denying,"* was now 
a thing of the past: its leaders had dispersed to both sides 
of the Atlantic, and apparently its work was done and its 
story told. The Methodism of the United Society was not 
yet born, and many sad American experiences must vet 
qualify its founder to return to England to begin that great 
work. 

July 26, 1736, after spending little more than five months 
in Georgia, Charles Wesley embarked for England: in a 
little more than a year after his arrival Ingham also returned 
home. 

In German, French, and Spanish, as well as in English, 
Wesley conducted his ministry in Georgia. German was 
his ordinary medium of intercourse with the Moravians: 



*Tverman, I. 107. 



(47) 



48 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



Spanish he learned that he might be able to instruct some 
Jews among his parishioners; and we learn of his giving 
French lessons to Miss Hopkey, afterwards Mrs. William- 
son, association with whom was the source of many trials 
and tribulations to her parish priest, needless to be related 
here. 

On a return trip from Frederica to Savannah in January, 
1737, Wesley perused the works of Macchiavelli, and since 
his own genius for government and methods of administration 
have been rather freely likened to those of Richelieu and 
Loyola, it may be interesting to note the opinion which he 
formed and expressed, " that if all the other doctrines of 
devils, which have been committed to writing, were collected 
together in one volume, it would fall short of this; and that 
should a prince form himself by this book, so calmly recom- 
mending hypocrisy, treachery, lying, robbery, oppression, 
adultery, whoredom, and murder of all kinds, Domitian or 
Nero would be an angel of light compared to that man." 

Wesley's ideas of religion at this period are freely ex- 
pressed in a letter written in March, 1737: " I entirely agree 
with you, that religion is love, and peace, and joy in the 
Holy Ghost; that, as it is the happiest, so it is the cheerfulest 
thing in the world; that it is utterly inconsistent with mo- 
roseness, sourness, severity, and indeed with whatever is not 
according to the softness, sweetness, and gentleness of Christ 
Jesus. I believe it is equally contrary to all preciseness, 
stiffness, affectation, and unnecessary singularity. I allow, 
too, that prudence, as well as zeal, is of the utmost impor- 
tance in the Christian life. But I do not yet see any possible 
case wherein trifling conversation can be an instance of it. 
In the following scriptures I take all such to be flatly for- 
bidden: Matt. xii. 36; Eph. v. 4, and iv. 29; Col. iv. 6." 

Other characteristics of the later Methodism, now latent 
in Wesley's mind and heart, also appear in the following: 
" When I first landed at Savannah, a gentlewoman said, ' I 
assure you, sir, you will see as well dressed a congregation 
on Sunday as most you have seen in London.' I did so; 



Beginnings of Methodism in America. 49 



and soon after I took occasion to expound those scriptures 
which relate to dress; and all the time that I afterward 
ministered at Savannah, I saw neither gold in the church, 
nor costly apparel, but the congregation in general was al- 
most constantly clothed in plain clean linen or woolen." 

In Savannah his manner of life, especially in the execu- 
tion of his clerical duties, excited much comment. He was, 
in fact, regarded as a Romanist, — "(1) Because he rigidly 
excluded all Dissenters from the holy communion, until they 
first gave up their faith and principles and, like Richard 
Turner and his sons, submitted to be rebaptized by him; 
(2) because Roman Catholics were received by him as 
saints; (3) because he endeavored to establish and enforce 
confession, penance, and mortification ; mixed wine with wa- 
ter at the sacrament; and appointed deaconesses in accord- 
ance with what he called the Apostolic Constitutions. He 
was, in point of fact," concludes Tyerman, 6i a Puseyite a 
hundred years before Dr. Pusey flourished." * 

His conduct as a clergyman, while characterized by con- 
scientiousness, studiousness, industrious application to inces- 
sant parish labors, self-denial, and diligent attention to pub- 
lic worship and the administration of the sacraments, was, 
indeed, 66 arrogant, foolish, offensive, intolerant; but the 
petty magisterial court at Savannah had no more right to try 
him for his high church practices than an Old Bailey judge 
and jury have to try the half -fledged papistical rectors, cu- 
rates, and incumbents, who are playing such fantastic tricks 
in the Protestant churches of old England at the present 
day." t But the Williamson affair finally assumed such a 
shape that in disgust Wesley was driven from the colony, 
sailing Dec. 22, 1737, from Charleston, a town which he had 
twice before visited, once in July, 1736, when his brother 
Charles left for England, and again in April, 1737, when he 
preached on £t Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the 
world." {< He must have spoken as a Methodist preacher 
should, for after service a man of education and character 



*Life and Times, I. 147, 148. -j- Tyerman, I. 159. 

4 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



seriously objected to the sermon, saying, ' Why if this be 
Christianity, a Christian must have more courage than Al- 
exander the Great.' " * 

So ended Wesley's labors in Georgia, leaving no trace on 
the continental American Methodism that was yet to be. 
More humble men, under his inspiration and partly under 
his directions, were to lay its enduring foundations. Wes- 
ley was not yet ready for his task. 

The Rev. Luke Tyerman, a laborious and exhaustive biog- 
rapher, (to whom all after-comers must confess indebted- 
ness,) but not always the most discreet, cannot forbear some 
wild speculations as to the possible consequences of Wesley's 
marriage with Miss Sophy Hopkey and his settlement in Sa- 
vannah. Only an Englishman, totally ignorant of the char- 
acter, habits, and history of the American Indian could at 
this late date perpetrate the following: " Had John Wesley 
married Sophia Christiana Hopkey, the probability is that, 
instead of returning to England and beginning the greatest 
religious revival of modern times, he would have settled in 
Georgia, and, like another Xavier, have spent a most spirit- 
ual and devoted life in converting Indian and other kinds of 
heathen. The results of such a life might have been glorious. 
Who can tell what might have been its influence upon the 
civilization and perpetuation of the nobly formed aboriginal 
inhabitants of the vast American continent? Would Ameri- 
ca, in the decline of the nineteenth century, have been in- 
habited by European strangers or by educated, civilized, 
hard-working, prosperous descendants of the wild Indians 
of the w r oods? " 

George Whitefield, as we have seen in a previous chapter, 
sailed for America the day before Wesley's arrival in En- 
gland, Feb. 1, 1788. Seven visits in all did this flaming 
evangelist make to America, at last laying down his body 
with his charge, ceasing at once to work and live, at New- 

■*McTyeire, Sermons, p. 52. Wesley also at this time issued what may 
be styled the first Methodist hymn book, whose title page bears date, Charles- 
ton, 1737. 



Beginnings of Methodism in America. 



5 T 



buryport, Mass., Sept. 30, 1770, where his remains rest to 
this day. His last sermon was preached at Exeter the day 
before his death, when he held a vast multitude spell-bound 
for two hours. The fruits of his evangelistic tours were 
shared by all the Churches, Congregational, Presbyterian, 
and Baptist, from Massachusetts to Georgia. In Philadel- 
phia, New York, and Boston immense and delighted audi- 
ences waited on his ministry and great awakenings followed. 
Jonathan Edwards was melted to tears under his preaching, 
and Benjamin Franklin unconditionally surrendered to the 
spell of his matchless oratory. He saw on one occasion 
that Whitefield was going to lift a collection, but though he 
had copper, gold, and silver in his pocket, he determined to 
give nothing. But as the sermon progressed, " I began to 
soften," he says, " and concluded to give the copper. An- 
other stroke of his oratory determined me to give the silver; 
and he finished so admirably that I emptied my pocket whol- 
ly into the collector's dish, gold and all." 

In England eternity only will reveal the work accomplished 
by Whitefield and his " female prelate, the grand, stately, 
strong-minded, godly, and self-sacrificing Countess of Hunt- 
ingdon " : in America, his labors were incomparably more 
extensive and fruitful than those of Wesley. He was Amer- 
ican Methodism's John the Baptist, bringing countless multi- 
tudes to repentance, and, as a voice crying in the wilder- 
ness, preparing the way of the Lord. 

Strawbridge, Embury, and Webb — local preachers all; 
Boardman and Pilmoor — Wesley's first missionaries; Ran- 
kin and Asbury — the first general assistants for America, — 
doubtless 4 'gathered not a little of the fruit where Whitefield 
had shaken the boughs." * 

The labors of these heroes of the cross our prescribed 
limits will not permit us to follow in detail: Strawbridge 
planted Methodism in Maryland; Embury in New York; 
and Webb in Pennsylvania. The two Irishmen, Straw- 
bridge and Embury, came to America probably about the 

* McTyeire, History of Methodism, p. 253. 



52 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



same time — 1760. Embury, inspired by Barbara Heck, be- 
gan preaching in his own house in New York in the autumn 
of 1766; in 1767 removed to the Rigging Lo ; and in 1768 
built the John Street chapel, which he dedicated Oct. 30 of 
that year. Strawbridge probably began preaching in his own 
house on Sam's Creek as early as 1760, (as maintained by Dr. 
Roberts,* a Baltimore local preacher of ability, who thorough- 
ly investigated the case) and in 1762 had a second preach- 
ing place. The Rev. Wm. Hamilton states that' by Straw- 
bridge a " society consisting of twelve or fifteen persons 
was formed as early as 1763 or 1764 and soon after a place 
of worship was erected called the ' Log Meetinghouse.' " t 
Without seeking to determine the question as to the rela- 
tive priority of Strawbridge' s or Embury's work, we may 
content ourselves with recording Bishop Asbury's statement, 
given in his Journal under date of April 30, 1801 : " We ar- 
rived to dine at Alexander Warfield's, on Sam's Creek, and 
pushed on to Henry Willis's, on Pipe Creek, where it had 
been our intention to open Conference. We had about for- 
ty members present, and sat on Friday, Saturday, and Mon- 
day: on Tuesday morning we rose There was 

preaching every day and every night. Our own people and 
our friends in the settlement were equally kind; and we had 
rich entertainment. The settlement of Pipe Creek is the 
richest in the state ; here Mr. Strawbridge formed the first 
society in Maryland — and America." % 

In 1769, Oct. 24, Boardman and Pilmoor were welcomed 
at Philadelphia by Captain Webb, whom Dr. Stevens regards 
aG the chief founder of American Methodism. Richard 
Boardman acted as Wesley's " assistant " or superintendent 
for the work in America. In 1770, " America " appears for 
the first time in the list of appointments from the English Con- 
ference. To this circuit, four preachers were assigned: Jo- 

*Dr. Stevens, I. 54, calls him "one of our best authorities in Methodist 
antiquarian researches." 

■j-Meth. Quart. Rev. 1856, Art. "Early Meth. in Maryland." 
JAsbury's Journal, ed. 1821, III. 27; the italics are in the original. 



Beginnings of Methodism in America. 



53 



seph Pilmoor, Richard Boardman, Robert Williams, and 
John King. Williams, a volunteer, whom Wesley had en- 
dorsed, had reached America a few weeks before the regu- 
lar itinerant missionaries, and enjoys the peculiar distinction 
of being; 1 'the first Methodist minister in America that 
published a book, the first that married, the first that located, 
and the first that died." His greater claim to grateful re- 
membrance arises from the fact that he was the spiritual 
father of Jesse Lee, the founder of New England Metho- 
dism. King, who arrived in the country shortly after the 
missionaries, was the first to preach the gospel according to 
Methodism in the city of Baltimore, where it has ever since 
maintained its primacy. 

Francis Asbury, the apostle of American Methodism, and 
Richard Wright, were Wesley's second brace of itinerant 
appointees, and sailed from Bristol, Sept. 4, 1771. They 
reached Philadelphia, Oct. 27, 1771. Thursday, Sept. 12, 
Asbury indulged in self-examination : " Whither am I going? 
To the new world. What to do? To gain honor? No, if 
I know my own heart. To get money? No, I am going to 
live to God, and to bring others so to do. . . . The 
people God owns in England are the Methodists. The doc- 
trines they preach, and the discipline they enforce, are, I 
believe, the purest of any people now in the world. The 
Lord has greatly blessed these doctrines and this discipline 
in the three kingdoms: they must therefore be pleasing to 
him. If God does not acknowledge me in America, I will 
soon return to England. I know my views are upright now 
— may they never be otherwise ! " * 

On their arrival in Philadelphia, the missionaries " were 
directed to the house of one, Mr. Francis Harris, who," 
writes Asbury, "kindly entertained us in the evening, and 
brought us to a large church, where we met with a consid- 
erable congregation. Brother Pilmoor preached. The 
people looked on us with pleasure, hardly knowing how to 
show their love sufficiently, bidding us welcome with fervent 



* Asbury's Journal, I. 2. 



54 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



affection, and receiving us as angels of God. ... I 
felt my mind open to the people, and my tongue loosed to 
speak." * 

This " large church," in which Pilmoor welcomed As- 
bury, as Asbury afterward welcomed Coke in Barratt's 
Chapel, was St. George's, revered as the " Old Cathedral " 
of Methodism in Philadelphia. For nearly fifty years it was 
the largest Methodist church in America. In it the first 
American Conference was held in 1773. It had been 
bought, in an unfinished state, from the German Reformed 
Church in 1770 by Miles Pennington, one of the first mem- 
bers of the first class, formed by Captain Webb in 1768. 

In little more than two weeks, on Nov. 12, Asbury set out 
for New York, and at that place, Tuesday, Nov. 20, re- 
cords in his Journal: " I remain in York though unsatisfied 
with our being both in town together. I have not yet the 
thing which I seek — a circulation of preachers to avoid par- 
tiality and popularity. However, I am fixed to the Metho- 
dist plan, and do what I do faithfully as to God. I expect 
trouble is at hand. This I expected when I left England, 
and I am willing to suffer — yea, to die — sooner than betray 
so good a cause by any means. It will be a hard matter to 
stand against all opposition as an iron pillar strong, and 
steadfast as a wall of brass; but, through Christ strengthen- 
ing me, I can do all things." f 

In New York he had found Boardman, 44 in peace, but 
weak in body." Two days later he adds: "At present I 
am dissatisfied. I judge we are to be shut up in the cities 
this winter. My brethren seem unwilling to leave the cities, 
but I think I shall show them the way. I am in trouble, 
and more trouble is at hand, for I am determined to make 
a stand against all partiality. I have nothing to seek but 
the glory of God, nothing to fear but his displeasure. I am 
come over with an upright intention, and through the grace 
of God I will make it appear: and I am determined that 
no man shall bias me with soft words and fair speeches; 



* Journal, I. 4. f Ibid., I. 6 



Beginnings of Methodism in America. 



55 



. . . but whomsoever I please or displease, I will be 
faithful to God, to the people, and to my own soul." 

Boardman was the chief — Mr. Wesley's 4 'Assistant" in 
charge of the American circuit; Asbury the subordinate — 
only a 44 helper." But perhaps there had been some talk 
with Wesley about evils he was to correct, with some special 
commission, before he left England, as Asbury declares he 
had expected trouble even before his departure. Moreover, 
Pilmoor had written to Wesley that Mr. Boardman and him- 
self were 44 chiefly confined to the cities, and therefore can- 
not, at present, go much into the country:" both the poli- 
cy and the reasons assigned for it, Wesley probably dis- 
liked; if so, Asbury had been told what he was to do. Of 
Boardman, Asbury writes, he 44 is a kind, loving, worthy 
man, truly amiable and entertaining, and of a childlike 
temper." His silence about his administrative gifts is note- 
worthy. It is not surprising, therefore, that under date of 
Oct. io, 1772, we find Asbury making this record: 44 I re- 
ceived a letter from Mr. Wesley, in which he required a 
strict attention to discipline ; and appointed me to act as 
assistant." 

Philadelphia and New York were good enough for Pil- 
moor (who subsequently became one of American Metho- 
dism's earliest contributions to the ministry of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church) and good Brother Boardman; Straw- 
bridge was later settled over the Sam's Creek and Bush 
Forest congregations; and Asbury once had a 44 call" to 
an Episcopal Church in Maryland: 44 the Church and the 
nation owe the maintenance of the itinerancy," says Ste- 
vens, 44 with its incalculable blessings, chiefly to the invinci- 
ble energy of Francis Asbury." 

Asbury' s promotion was effected apparently without fric- 
tion, for on Oct. 19 he met Brother Boardman at Princeton 
and says, 44 We both agreed in judgment about the affairs of 
the society, and were comforted together," which seems 
to be a modest way of stating that the new 44 helper " ac- 
cepted the views of the new 44 assistant" and easily adjusted 



56 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



himself to the changed situation, which relieved him of irk- 
some responsibility. 

The first Quarterly Conference in America of which we 
have any account was held at J. Presbury's on the western 
shore of Maryland, Dec. 23, 1772. Mr. Asbury says: 

44 We afterwards proceeded to our temporal business, and 
considered the following propositions: 

44 1 . What are our collections? We found them sufficient 
to defray our expenses. 

44 2. How are the preachers stationed? Brother S. 
[Strawbridge] and Brother O. [Owen], in Frederick 
County; Brother K. [King], Brother W. [Webster], and 
I. R. [Isaac Rollins], on the other side of the bay; and my- 
self in Baltimore. 

44 3. Shall we be strict in our society meetings, and not 
admit strangers ? Agreed. 

44 4. Shall we drop preaching in the day time through the 
week? Not agreed to. 

44 5. Will the people be contented without our administer- 
ing the sacrament? J. K. was neuter; Brother S. pleaded 
much for the ordinances, and so did the people, who ap- 
peared to be much biased by him. I told them I would not 
agree to it at that time, and insisted on our abiding by our 
rules. But Mr. B. [Boardman] had given them their way 
at the quarterly meeting held here before, and I was obliged 
to connive at some things for the sake of peace. 

44 6. Shall we make collections weekly, to pay the preach- 
ers' board and expenses? This was not agreed to: we then 
inquired into the moral character of the preachers and ex- 
horters. Only one exhorter was found any way doubtful, and 
we have great hopes of him. Brother S. received £8 quar- 
terage; Brother K. and myself, £6 each. Great love sub- 
sisted among us in this meeting, and we parted in peace." * 

Here the great question of the ordinances, which subse- 
quently came so near producing an early schism in American 
Methodism, meets us for the first time : Strawbridge appears 



* Journal, I. 37, 38. Cf. Stevens, Hist. M. E. Ch., I. 133. 



Beginnings of Methodism in America. 57 

as the earnest advocate of the administration of the sacra- 
ments and Asbury falls heir to some difficulties arising from 
the lax administration of easy Brother Boardman. 

At the British Conference of 1772, Captain Webb, re- 
cruiting for America, asked for two of the ablest men, 
Christopher Hopper and Joseph Benson, the commentator. 
Thomas Rankin and George Shadford were sent and were 
cordially received by Asbury at Philadelphia, June 3, 1773.* 

6 i Thomas Rankin was one of the commanding men of 
the Wesleyan itinerancy. Wesley appointed him at once 
General Assistant or Superintendent of the American So- 
cieties, for he was not only Asbury' s senior in the itin- 
erancy, but was an experienced disciplinarian ; and Wesley 
judged him competent to manage the difficulties which had 
arisen under the administration of Asbury, as represented 
in the correspondence of the latter. Asbury had probably 
asked to be relieved by such a successor, and welcomed him 
with sincere gratification." f 

Mr. Asbury' s plan of extending the work had carried him 
much into the country districts. To this policy, as we have 
seen, he steadfastly adhered. 44 But while he was thus en- 
gaged in visiting the plantations and villages, an undue 
eagerness to extend the work in the towns had unhappily led 
to a comparative neglect of discipline." | Dr. Bangs de- 
clares that " notwithstanding the vigilance of Mr. Asbury 
. many disorders still existed for which an adequate 
remedy had not been provided. These things had been 
communicated to Mr. Wesley, and he therefore clothed Mr. 
Rankin with powers superior to any which had been vested 
in his predecessors in office." § 



* Journal, I. 52. 

J Drew, Life of Coke, p. 61. 



-{-Stevens, Hist. M. E. Church, I. 142, 
§ Bangs, Hist. M. E. Ch., I. 80. 



CHAPTER V. 



THE FIRST AMERICAN CONFERENCE: 1773. 



HAT Thomas Rankin, the accomplished disciplinarian of 



1 eleven years' standing in the British Conference, and Mr. 
Wesley's General Assistant for America, specially appointed 
to rectify the American administration and to bring it into 
harmony with the English model, formed under Wesley's 
own eye and hand, should preside over the itinerants of the 
New World in their first Conference at Philadelphia in 1773, 
was a matter of course. He represented his chief. Mr. 
Wesley's right of appointment and control was undisputed, 
and, in the light of all the precedents in which these men 
had been trained, indisputable. The title of the Minutes of 
the first formal Conference ever held by Methodist preach- 
ers on the continent of America is " Minutes of Some 
Conversations between the Preachers in Connexion with the 
Reverend Mr. John Wesley." And this continued to be 
the official heading of the proceedings of the American Con- 
ference down to and including the Conference which sat in 
April and May of 1784. In 1785 begins the series of "Min- 
utes Taken at the Several Annual Conferences of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church:" a series which in both branches 
of Episcopal Methodism has been perpetuated to this day.* 
Thus from the beginning in both England and America, 
Methodism has been a "Connexion." The term is tech- 
nical, and characteristic of the denomination. Connexion- 
alism is of the essence of the system, equally opposed to 
Congregationalism in the churches and to individualism in the 
preachers. Mr. Wesley, in America no less than in En- 
gland, was, at the first, the center of union. Connexion with 




* Minutes, ed. of 18: 



13, pp. 2-49; ed. of 1840, pp. 5-21. 



(58) 



The First American Conference: iyy 'j. 59 



him was the living bond which held incipient American 
Methodism together. He was the fountain of authority, 
acknowledged by all as rightful, original, and supreme. 
Through him a closer organic union subsisted between the 
Methodism of America, recognized at home as scarcely 
more than a needy but promising and fruitful mission-field, 
and that of England, than between the colonies, now on the 
eve of revolt, and the mother country. Mr. Wesley was the 
patriarch and apostle, the founder and creator, of Ecumen- 
ical Methodism. Mr. Rankin was his American legate or 
viceroy. He took the President's chair in the first Confer- 
ence without question and as of right. He directed the busi- 
ness and made the appointments of the preachers. 

In St. George's Church, the 4 * Methodist cathedral," in 
the city of Philadelphia, on the canonical day, Wednesday, 
July 14, 1773, the first American Methodist Conference as- 
sembled: it continued in session three days, adjourning 
Friday, July 16.* Asbury calls the Conference 44 General", "f 
but this was in contradistinction to the Quarterly Confer- 
ences hitherto held: the distinction between Annual and 
General Conferences did not yet exist. The Conference 
from this time became annual, as to its periodical meetings, 
and general, as to its representing and supervising and pro- 
viding for the whole work. Its functions as we shall see 
were chiefly executive, though, also, under the necessities of 
the situation of the Americans and the watchful and suffi- 
cient authority of Mr. Rankin, partially legislative. Its leg- 
islation was of two general descriptions : ( 1 ) Declared agree- 
ment with, and subordination to, Mr. Wesley and the Brit- 
ish Conference in the fundamentals of doctrine and polity; 
and (2) Special and local rules to guide the administration 

* These dates are fixed with certainty by both Rankin's and Asbury's 
Journals. See A.'s Journal, I. 55. The printed minutes represent itas held 
in June — this is clearly a mistake, either clerical or typographical. Bangs' 
and Smith's Histories say July 4, but that day in 1773 was Sunday. Other 
dates are given by various authorities. Compare Stevens, Hist. M. E. 
Church, I. 160, footnote. 

| Journal, I. 55. 



Go 



American Methodism to 1784. 



of the American preachers, in the peculiar circumstances in 
which they found themselves. 

The first American Conference, like the first English, of 
1744, was composed of ten members, all Europeans, as fol- 
lows: Thomas Rankin, Richard Boardman, Joseph Pil- 
moor, Francis Asbury, Richard Wright, George Shadford, 
Thomas Webb, John King, Abraham Whitworth, and Jo- 
seph Yearbry. To all of these we have previously been 
introduced in these pages save Whitworth and Yearbry: 
the latter came over with Rankin and Shadford,* and the 
former was an Englishman who had labored faithfully with 
Webb and Asbury in New Jersey in 1772,! and was received 
into full connection at the second Conference in 1774, when 
Yearbry was also admitted. Boardman and Pilmoor do 
not appear in the list of appointments, though they tarried 
in America for nearly six months after the Conference, em- 
barking together for England, Jan. 2, 1774. Politically and 
ecclesiastically America was becoming somewhat unsuited 
to their tastes. They were loyal Englishmen and the clouds 
of the w r ar of the Revolution were now lowering. Rankin, 
supported by Asbury, who makes some sharp and significant 
allusions in his Journal, was enforcing rigid discipline on 
preachers and people alike: and so the worthy pair, who 
had accomplished much good during their four years' so- 
journ in America, departed in peace. 6 'Asbury labored 
hard to conform the American Societies to Wesley's mod- 
el," remarks Stevens, " but had met with no little resistance 
from both the preachers and laymen; Rankin had been 
sent out for this purpose, and to these two thorough discip- 
linarians we owe the effective organization of the incipient 
Methodism of the new world. Without them it seems prob- 
able that it would have adopted a settled pastorate, and be- 

* Asbury's Journal, I. 52. 

-j- Stevens, Hist. M. E. Ch. I. 203: it is evidently an error, from which the 
most careful historian cannot altogether free his pages, by which Stevens 
represents Shadford as laboring in New Jersey in 1772. He did not come 
over till 1773. 



The First American Conference : 17 7 'j. 61 



come blended with the Anglican Church of the colonies, or 
like the fruits of Whitefield's labors, have been absorbed in 
the general Protestantism of the country." * Nor was our 
good friend Captain Webb in a position to take a regular 
appointment consistently with his other engagements. But 
these three vacancies in the ranks were filled by three noble 
men. Robert Strawbridge, Robert Williams, and William 
Watters — to whom is " now universally conceded the pe- 
culiar distinction of being the first native American itinerant 
of Methodism " t — received appointments, though they 
were not present. 

The business of the Conference as recorded is digested 
into three distinct numerical series : ( 1 ) the first settles fun- 
damental questions of doctrine and discipline in relation to 
Mr. Wesley and the English Conference, and might well be 
styled constitutional; (2) the second embraces "rules and 
regulations " for the government of the American preachers 
and people, and might fairly be designated legislative in the 
narrower sense; (3) the third includes what would now be 
called " minute business " in an Annual Conference and is 
transacted under two Questions : " How are the preachers 
stationed?" and 46 What numbers are there in Society?" 
These questions fall within the limits of the ordinary execu- 
tive functions of our present Annual Conferences. Under 
these heads we shall consider the various transactions of the 
First American Conference. 

/. Constitutional : Doctrine and Discipline. 

The first 66 query proposed to every preacher," doubtless 
from the Chair, as Rankin had seen Wesley do many times 
in England, was this: * ' Ought not the authority of Mr. 
Wesley and that Conference to extend to the preachers and 
people in America, as well as in Great Britain and Ireland? " 
The answer — by obvious implication the answer of " every 
preacher" — was, "Yes." 

The second was like unto the first, " Ought not the doc- 



* Stevens, Hist. M. E. Church, I, 161. f Stevens, I. 175. 



62 



American Methodism to 1J84.. 



trine and discipline of the Methodists, as contained in the 
[English] minutes to be the sole rule of our conduct, who 
labor in the connexion with Mr, Wesley in America?" A 
similar answer was given, "Yes" 

The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened 
by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one 
shepherd; that this nail of union in one Methodist fold 
under one Methodist shepherd might be driven through, un- 
til it should goad him who should kick against it, Rankin, 
the 44 disciplinarian," propounded, and the preachers an- 
swered, a third question, 44 If so, does it not follow that if 
any preachers deviate from the minutes we can have no fel- 
lowship with them till they change their conduct? " Again 
a simple, and unanimous, 44 Yes,'" settled the question. 

Thus was the action of the Conference, in the preliminary 
business of settling the foundations, concluded. The propo- 
sal of the questions hardly involved the right of the body to 
reach a contrary conclusion. That contingency was not 
contemplated. To preacher or preachers who answered 
these questions in the negative, it is obvious that Rankin and 
the Conference would have straightway declared, 44 We can 
have no fellowship with them till they change their conduct." 
It was a sifting and settling time. Rankin's business in 
America was to consolidate a body of American Methodists 
after the type of the primitive Wesleyan model. The pre- 
vious administration had not conformed entirely to these 
principles. Boardman was good, but easy; Asbury had 
superseded him and encountered difficulties; Rankin had 
come with an express commission from Wesley to set all 
things in order. Eleven hundred and sixty members were 
reported in Society, but, writes Rankin, 44 Some of the 
above number I found afterward were not closely united to 
us. Indeed our discipline was not properly attended to, ex- 
cept at Philadelphia and New York; and even in those 
places it was upon the decline. Nevertheless, from the ac- 
counts I heard, there was a real foundation laid of doing 
much good, and we hoped to see greater things than these. 



The First American Conference : iyj 'j. 



63 



The preachers were stationed in the best manner we could, 
and we -parted in love, and also with a full resolution to 
spread genuine Methodism in public and private with all 
our might." Of course it is conceivable that a majority or 
the whole of the Conference, under mistaken or mischievous 
influences, might have obstinately refused to answer affirm- 
atively the preliminary questions which, according to primi- 
tive usage, Rankin doubtless felt it his duty to propound 
from the Chair. He desired a free and outspoken commit- 
tal of the preachers on these vital points, and it was freely 
and manfully given. This course probably accorded strict- 
ly with his instructions from Wesley. Had a majority of 
the preachers refused compliance, the only result could have 
been a regular and an irregular, a primitive and a schis- 
matic, Methodism in America. Both might have prospered, 
or one have come to naught: we cannot tell. If the whole 
Conference had set itself against union with, and subordina- 
tion to, Wesley, Rankin would still have had the alternative of 
withdrawal to England, leaving the Americans in possession 
of the field to develop such a Methodism as their wisdom 
might frame or Providence shape. It might have succeed- 
ed; it probably would have failed: again we cannot tell. 
We cannot speculate sanely upon the results of a hypothet- 
ical statement of facts. These alternatives have been con- 
sidered simply to show that Rankin sought and obtained a 
free and unanimous consent of the Americans to certain 
fundamental conditions of union with Mr. Wesley, without 
which the work could not have continued under Mr. Wes- 
ley's direction. 

These and the other conclusions of the Conference were 
not reached without friction. The new administration was 
in some sense an impeachment of the old. Boardman 
and Pilmoor, as the first missionaries formally sent out by 
Wesley in 1769, had inaugurated that old administration and 
for four years had given it a complexion which even Asbury 
did not succeed in altering. Concerning the proceedings 
of the body, Asbury says: " There were some debates 



6 4 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



amongst the preachers in this Conference relative to the 
conduct of some who had manifested a desire to abide in 
the cities and live like gentlemen. Three years out of four 
have been already spent in the cities. It was also feared 
that money had been wasted, improper leaders appointed, 
and many of our rules broken.'' * That these debates 
helped Messrs. Boardman and Pilmoor to reach conclusions 
and form decisions is highly probable. It is certain they re- 
ceived no appointments from General-Assistant Rankin and 
that, whether influenced by political or ecclesiastical consid- 
erations or a combination of both, they soon left the country. 
Asbury arrived at Philadelphia on Thursday, July 15, the sec- 
ond day of the Conference session, 44 but did not find such 
perfect harmony," he says, 44 as I could wish for." f There 
were, as we have seen, some grounds for such differences, 
though these were dissipated, and 44 We parted in love," as 
Rankin records. 44 First pure, then peaceable" is the divine 
order. But Asbury's attitude was evidently somewhat critical. 
It was a part of his temperament as a born leader. About true 
greatness a trace of human infirmity often lingers. It is not 
matter of record, though commonly conjectured, that Asbury 
had requested that Rankin, or some such superintendent, 
should be sent out. He had been the chief of administra- 
tion. He was now superseded. He probably knew more 
about the work and the men than anybody else present — 
certainly more than the newly-arrived President of the Con- 
ference. The business may not have been transacted ex- 
actly as he would have brought it forward. Some things 
had gone wrong in America, as he had seen and had ear- 
nestly endeavored to correct. It is possible that the methods 
of reaching some of the conclusions, so briefly recorded in 
the minutes of the Conference, were not the best — rather 
English than American — and that the manner of General- 
Assistant Rankin, occupying the chair, toward Ex- Assistant 
Asbury, or possibly toward the Conference itself, was not 
always conciliatory. But whatever deductions are to be 



* Journal, I. 56. | Ibid., I. 55. 



The First American Conference: 1773- 



65 



made for the personal equation, arising from human infirmi- 
ties, the results reached were sound and enduring, and con- 
stitute no mean tribute to the ecclesiastical statesmanship of 
Rankin and the First American Conference. 

The first edition of the 44 Large Minutes," as we have 
seen in a former chapter, had been issued in 1753; the sec- 
ond in 1763; and the third in 1770: this last publication it 
was, doubtless, which by the action of the Philadelphia Con- 
ference of 1773 became the original doctrinal and disciplin- 
ary basis of American Methodism. It contained the record 
of the Leeds Conference of 1769 when the preachers, at Mr. 
Wesley's suggestion, bound themselves iS to preach the old 
Methodist doctrines , and no other, contained in the Minutes 
of the Conferences/' and £< to observe and enforce the whole 
Methodist discipline, laid down in the said Minutes."* 

This further commentary may conclude our notice of the 
first section of the action of the Conference: we find the 
superintending and appointing power present in the person 
of Mr. Rankin, and the Conference itself constituting the 
consulting element, with limited legislative privileges, exer- 
cised in the enactment of certain rules to be hereafter no- 
ticed. The superintending power in the first American 
Conference derived its existence and authority directly and 
solely from Mr. Wesley; and the consulting element freely 
acknowledged the legitimacy and rightful authority of the 
superintendency. Let it be borne in mind that we are not 
debating theories of government and weighing their compar- 
ative merits : we are studying history — constitutional history 
— and when we get back to the beginnings of American 
Methodist polity, this we find to be the shape which the 
government actually assumed ; these the forms under which 

*Dr. Robert Emory, in his History of the Discipline, begins with a com- 
parison between the original Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
1784, with the Large Minutes as found in Wesley's Works, V. 211-239 
which were printed from a copy bearing date 1791 — the year of Mr. Wes- 
ley's death — collated with the edition of 1789. This appears to have been 
the only copy accessible to Dr. Emory. See his Hist, of the Discipline of 
the M. E. Church, p. 26, footnote. 
5 



66 



American Methodism to 1J84.. 



the elemental constitutional units first manifested them- 
selves. 

II. Legislative: Rules and Regulations. 

Besides the three questions on doctrine and discipline, 
whose answers settled, in a manner not improperly described 
as constitutional, the fundamental relations of the Americans 
to Mr. Wesley and British Methodism, six rules " were 
agreed to by all the preachers present," of which the first 
two were as follows: " 1. Every preacher who acts in con- 
nection with Mr. Wesley and the brethren who labor in 
America, is strictly to avoid administering the ordinances of 
baptism and the Lord's supper. 2. All the people among 
whom we labor to be earnestly exhorted to attend the 
Church, and to receive the ordinances there; but in a par- 
ticular manner, to press the people in Maryland and Vir- 
ginia to the observance of this minute."* 

The minutes at this point are not strictly correct; or, more 
probably, there was a private understanding as to a certain 
noteworthy exception to the operation of these rules. As- 
bury's Journal reveals the name of a preacher who was per- 
mitted to administer the sacraments: No preacher in our 
connection shall be permitted to administer the ordinances 
at this time; except Mr. S. [Strawbridge], and he under the 
particular direction of the assistant." f 

Strawbridge' s position was independent and influential. 
Though his name appears among the appointments, it was 
by no means certain that the Conference could exercise 
jurisdiction over, or execute discipline upon, the father of 
Methodism in Maryland, where there were five hundred 
members in Society. As early as 1762 or 1763 he baptized 
Henry Maynard, who died as late as 1837. There is reason 
to believe he had been ordained by a German minister, a 
certain Benedict Swoope, just as Otterbein afterwards assist- 
ed at the episcopal ordination of Asbury himself. t He had 
things in a mighty swing in Maryland. It is a tribute to his 



* Minutes, ed. of 1813, p. 5. | Journal, I. 56. 

J William Fort, in Christian Advocate and Journal, July 10, 1844. 



The First American Conference : iyj 'j. 



67 



unique relation to the work that, though not present at the 
Conference, he was excepted from the operation of the sac- 
ramental rule. Boardman, when he was Assistant, could 
not or did not stop him. Asbury " was obliged to connive 
at some things for the sake of peace" when he held the 
Quarterly Meeting, Dec. 23, 1772. General-Assistant 
Rankin concluded to follow in the footsteps of his illustrious 
predecessors, and the Conference dared not leave him off 
the plan of the work or abridge his privileges long recog- 
nized by the people, to whom he administered the sacra- 
ments before any English itinerants appeared in the country. 

In the first Quarterly Conference of which any record ex- 
ists; in the first Annual Conference that ever sat, Straw- 
bridge won the day. 64 Being an Irishman, he shared not 
in the deferential sympathies of his English brethren for the 
Establishment; as for any other sentiments, the actual char- 
acter of the representatives of the Establishment, clerical 
and lay, around him, could claim none from him but pity or 
contempt. Its clergy were known chiefly as the heartiest 
card-players, horse-racers, and drinkers of the middle colo- 
nies. Robert Strawbridge was doubtless imprudent in the 
Irish resolution with which he resisted the policy of the 
English itinerants ; for the intuitive foresight, with which he 
anticipated the necessity of the independent administration 
of the sacraments, should have suggested to him the certain- 
ty of their concession in due time, and therefore the expe- 
diency of patient harmony in the infant Church till that time 
should come." * Whether Dr. Stevens' reasoning in the 
last sentence is conclusive or not, Strawbridge stood for the 
rights and liberties of American Methodists against the con- 
servative English. It seemed as if he must win. The sac- 
ramental controversy came near disrupting American Meth- 
odism. Mr. Wesley conceded the point none too soon when 
in 1784 the Christmas Conference organized the "Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church in the United States of America." 

But if the first three questions and answers settle the sub- 



* Stevens, Hist. M. E.«Ch., I. 164, 165. 



68 



Amei'ican Methodism to 1J84.. 



ordination of the American Methodists to Mr. Wesley and 
the British Conference, these first two rules, unanimously 
adopted, equally settle the relation of the Societies in Amer- 
ica to the Church of England, as it existed in the colonies 
before the revolutionary war. That relation, it was intend- 
ed, should be identical with the relation of the United Socie- 
ty to the Church in England. The sacraments were to 
be sought at her altars from the hands of her clergy. The 
people were to be 44 exhorted" and 4 'pressed" to attend 
44 the Church " and to receive the ordinances there. These 
American Methodists considered themselves Episcopalians, 
with the peculiarities and improvements of Methodists su- 
peradded. In spirit and fact, they were submissive now 
both to Mr. Wesley and to the Church of England: so the 
Conference action indicates. But by and by American 
Methodism was confronted with the perplexities of a prob- 
lem which involved the achievement of a twofold independ- 
ence: (1) independence of Mr. Wesley and his British 
Conference, and (2) independence of the Church of En- 
gland. Mr. Wesley in enabling them to achieve the latter 
unwittingly afforded them the conditions for achieving also 
the former. Precisely how this double independence was 
wrought out, it will be the province of the following pages 
to delineate. 

The third rule adopted by the Conference was designed 
to enforce strictly in America a uniform observance of Eng- 
lish Methodism: 44 No person or persons to be admitted into 
our love-feasts oftener than twice or thrice, unless they be- 
come members; and none to be admitted to the society 
meetings more than thrice." * 

The fourth and fifth rules are intended to regulate the 
book business, and thus in the very first Conference appear 
the germs of the legislation which has established and fos- 
tered the great publishing interests of American Methodism : 

44 4. None of the preachers in America to reprint any of 
Mr. Wesley's books without his authority (when it can be 



* Minutes, ed. of 1813, p. 6. 



The First American Conference : 1JJ3. 



69 



gotten) and the consent of their brethren. 5. Robert Wil- 
liams to sell the books he has already printed, but to print 
no more, unless under the above restrictions." * 

Brother Williams' difficulty is hinted at by Mr. Asbury, 
" I was somewhat troubled to hear of Mr. W., who had 
printed some of Mr. Wesley's books for the sake of gain. 
This will not do. It does by no means look well." f This 
judgment is too severe. Probably Brother Williams' neces- 
sities — his distresses — were great. Jesse Lee, the first his- 
torian of Methodism, says: " Previous to the formation of 
this rule, Robert Williams, one of the preachers, had re- 
printed many of Mr. Wesley's books, and had spread them 
through the country, to the great advantage of religion. 
The sermons, which he printed in small pamphlets, had a 
very good effect, and gave the people great light and under- 
standing in the nature of the new birth and in the plan of 
salvation; and withal, they opened the way in many places 
for our preachers to be invited to preach where they had 
never been before. But, notwithstanding the good that had 
been done by the circulation of the books, it now became 
necessary for all the preachers to be united in the same course 
of printing and selling our books, so that the profits arising 
therefrom might be divided among them or applied to some 
charitable purpose." % Let us honor Williams then as the 
preacher who inaugurated the publishing business in Amer- 
ican Methodism, and by his activity induced legislation to 
regulate it in the first Conference. 

The sixth and last rule extends the supervision and au- 
thority of General-Assistant Rankin over the whole work 
and is in these words: " Every preacher who acts as an as- 
sistant [t. e., has charge of a circuit] to send an account of 
the work once in six months to the General Assistant." § 



The administrative or executive business of the Confer- 



III. Minute or Executive Business. 



* Minutes, ed. of 1813, p. 6. 
J Lee, Hist, of Meth., p. 48. 



j Journal, I. 45. 
§ Minutes, p. 6. 



70 American Methodism to 1784.. 

ence was formulated and transacted under two questions 
which have since grown very familiar, and which may be 
here reproduced in full: 

"Jgues. 1. How are the preachers stationed? 

6 6 Ans. 

' ' New York, Thomas Rankin, ) to change in four 
" Philadelphia, George Shadford, 5 months. 
"New Jersey, John King, William Watters. 
"Baltimore \ Francis Asbury, Robert Strawbridge, 

' C Abraham Whitworth, Joseph Yearbry. 
" Norfolk, Richard Wright. 
" Petersburg, Robert Williams. 

"Jthies. 2. What members are there in the society? 
"Ans. 



New York 180 

Philadelphia 180 

New Jersey 200 



Maryland 500 

Virginia 100 

(Preachers, 10.) 



Total 1,160"* 

More than half the members — six hundred — it will be no- 
ticed were in Virginia and Maryland alone. These fig- 
ures put beyond dispute that Strawbridge was the principal 
founder of American Methodism. Rankin had chosen the 
wrong end of the work for his labors, if he wished to estab- 
lish a permanent and far-reaching influence. Asbury he 
sent to Baltimore, the pivotal city. In leadership and num- 
bers, the Methodist center of gravity was now located in the 
South. 



* Minutes, p. 6. 



CHAPTER VI. 



THE ANNUAL CONFERENCES TO THE CLOSE OF RANKIN'S AD- 
MINISTRATION IN 1777. 



/. The Conference of 1774. 

THE Second Annual Conference assembled as before in 
Philadelphia, Wednesday, May 25, 1774, and adjourned 
Friday, May 27. General-Assistant Rankin occupied the 
chair, managed the business, and made the appointments. 

In this second session, it is easy to discern that the body 
is settling down to what subsequently became the routine 
minute business of Annual Conferences, the answers to six 
of the ordinary disciplinary questions being recorded. The 
first session was extraordinary. It had much to do in the 
way of general review and final settlement of what some of 
the irregulars might have been disposed to view as open 
questions. Enactments, such as we have ventured to style 
constitutional agreements, in view of their fundamental and 
permanent character, disappear from the record of business 
transacted at the Second Conference ; confirming once more 
the view that such action by no means fell within the scope 
of the ordinary powers of the body, but was proposed by Mr. 
Rankin, as the newly-arrived plenipotentiary of Mr. Wesley, 
in the initial Conference, that there might be from the begin- 
ning a free, full, and frank understanding of the relations of 
the Americans to Mr. Wesley and the English, and that the 
preachers then in connection, or afterward to be received, 
might be informed of the conditions under which member- 
ship in the Conference could be held, the violation of which 
would issue in the withdrawal of fellowship from them, 
"till they change their conduct." 

The six " Questions "propounded and answered were as 
follows : 

(71) 



72 



American Methodism to 1784. 



44 Ques. 1. Who are admitted [z*. e., into full connection] 
this year? 

44 Ques. 2. Who are admitted on trial? 

44 Ques. 3. Who are Assistants [t. e., superintendents of 
circuits, or preachers in charge] this year? 

44 Ques. 4. Are there any objections to any of the Preach- 
ers ? 

44 Ques. 5. How are the preachers stationed this year? 

44 Ques. 6. What numbers are there in Society?" 

Five preachers are admitted into full connection, and 
seven on trial. Rankin's name appears first on the roll of 
Assistants and Asbury's immediately follows, Shadford's be- 
ing third. The answer to Ques. 4 has since become stereo- 
typed, 44 They were examined one by one." There were 
seventeen preachers, with a total of 2,073 members in So- 
ciety, of whom 738 were reported from Baltimore, and 1,063 
from Maryland — more than half of the denomination being in 
this state. Brunswick Circuit reported 218 members against 
204 in Philadelphia and 222 in New York. The increase in 
the whole work had been nearly a thousand members, a re- 
sult largely due to the efficiency of Rankin's administration. 
Asbury was appointed to New York (apparently, as we shall 
see, against his will, as he desired to labor in Baltimore) 
and Rankin to Philadelphia, these two to exchange at the 
end of the first quarter. Shadford was placed in charge of 
the Baltimore Circuit, with Dromgoole, (Drumgole is the 
spelling in the minutes) Webster, and Lindsay as 44 help- 
ers." Strawbridge's name does not appear on the plan. 
Indeed none of Asbury's 44 helpers " of the preceding year 
are returned to Baltimore. Evidently Rankin was stirring 
things, and introducing a discipline under whose severity 
even Asbury, now in feeble health, smarted. To the list of 
appointments this note is appended, 4 4 All the preachers to 
change at the end of six months," of course as directed by 
the General-Assistant. 

44 The itinerancy was under a stern regimen at that day. 
Hitherto, as we have seen, it transferred the preachers from 



The Annual Confereitces to 1777. 



73 



New York to Philadelphia every four months; now it was 
more rigorous toward the laborers of the cities than before, 
for while the preachers on the country circuits exchanged 
semi-annually, those of Philadelphia and New York ex- 
changed quarterly. The itinerancy was prized not only as 
affording variety of ministerial gifts to the Societies, but as 
a sort of military drill to the preachers. It kept them ener- 
getic by keeping them in motion. No great captain has ap- 
proved of long encampments. The early Methodist itiner- 
ants were an evangelical cavalry; they were always in the 
saddle; if not in line of battle, yet skirmishing and pioneer- 
ing; a mode of life which conduced not a little to that chiv- 
alric spirit and heroic character which distinguished them as 
a class. The system speedily killed off such as were weak 
in body, and drove off such as were feeble in character; the 
remnant were the 4 giants of those days ' morally, very often 
intellectually, and, to a notable extent, physically. Young 
men, prudently initiated into its hardships, acquired robust 
health, stentorian lungs, and buoyant spirits, 4 a good hu- 
mor,' a bon hommie which facilitated not a little their access 
to the common people; but many whose souls were equal 
to their work sunk under it physically. Its early records are 
full, as we shall hereafter see, of examples of martyrdom." * 
The Conference 64 agreed to the following particulars " 
in the matter of rules and regulations touching the temporal 
economy of the Church: 44 1. Every preacher who is re- 
ceived into full connection is to have the use and property 
of his horse, which any of the circuits may furnish him with. 
2. Every preacher to be allowed six pounds Pennsylvania 
currency per quarter and his traveling charges besides. 3. 
For every assistant to make a general collection at Easter in 
the circuits where they labor; to be applied to the sinking of 
debts on the houses and relieving the preachers in want. 4. 
Wherever Thomas Rankin spends his time he is to be as- 
sisted by those circuits." f 

* Stevens, Hist. M. E. Ch., I. 230, 231. 

•f" For all the preceding, see Minutes, 181 3, pp. 7, 8. 



74 American Methodism to 1784.. 



At the Quarterly Conference which Asbury held on the 
western shore of Maryland, Dec. 23, 1772, it will be re- 
membered that Brother Strawbridge (a married man) was 
allowed £8 quarterage, and Brother Asbury and Brother 
King £6 each. The Annual Conference, it appears from 
Regulation 2, now relieved the Quarterly Conferences of 
this responsibility, and assumed jurisdiction of the matter of 
fixing the compensation of the laborers in the vineyard, plac- 
ing all the preachers on a uniform basis of support. So this 
financial arrangement continued for many years afterward. 
Not until quite late in the history of the Church was this 
primitive jurisdiction of the Quarterly Conference restored, 
and the principle established that those who pay shall deter- 
mine what is necessary for the support of the ministry, and 
what they are able to contribute. In this rule, also, appears 
the distinction between "quarterage" and 44 traveling ex- 
penses " which has hardly yet become extinct, the writer of 
these pages having had his traveling expenses to his last ap- 
pointment allowed by the stewards. 

The Quarterly Conference is the body of supreme author- 
ity and jurisdiction in the local Church: the Annual Confer- 
ence originally exercised general supervision until the Gen- 
eral Conference was developed from it by processes which 
will be fully noticed in the progress of our history. In En- 
gland there is still but a single Conference supervising the 
whole work. It meets annually. 

In the third rule, we see the germs (1) of the Church- 
extension fund and (2) of the Conference collection. Build- 
ing church-houses soon came to be looked upon as the 
business of the local society, and the general collection for 
paying debts on chapels and meeting-houses disappeared. 
But the organization of Church-extension Boards is only a 
reversion to the primitive type. The principle of community 
of interest and obligation, even in the erection of local 
houses of worship, was recognized in the beginning and re- 
appears at last in more formal appliances and organizations. 

In the fourth regulation we discover the beginnings of the 



The Annual Conferences to 17JJ. 



75 



Bishops' Fund. It makes little difference whether the per- 
son exercising a general superintendent is known as Gen- 
eral-Assistant, Superintendent, Presiding-elder, or Bishop; 
his relation to the work is practically the same. Mr. Ran- 
kin sustained by Mr. Wesley's appointment such a general 
relation to the whole work. His claim for support was ac- 
cordingly placed on a general basis. 

General- Assistant Rankin gives the following account of 
the Conference session: "Everything considered, we had 
reason to bless God for what he had done in about ten 
months. Above a thousand members are added to the So- 
cieties, and most of these have found peace with God. We 
now labor in the provinces of New York, the Jerseys, Penn- 
sylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. We spoke our minds 
freely, one to another in love; and whatever we thought 
would further the work we most cheerfully embraced. We 
had now more than seventeen preachers to be employed the 
ensuing year, and upward of two thousand members, with 
calls and openings into many fresh places. We stationed the 
preachers as well as we could, and all seemed to be satisfied." 

Ex-Assistant Asbury says: "Wednesday 25. Our Con- 
ference began. The overbearing spirit oi a certain person 
had excited my fears. My judgment was stubbornly op- 
posed for a while, and at last submitted to. But it is my duty 
to bear all things with a meek and patient spirit. Our Confer- 
ence was attended with great power; and, all things consid- 
ered, with great harmony. We agreed to send Mr. W. 
[Wright] to England ; and all acquiesced in the future stations 
of the preachers. My lot was to go to New York. My 
body and mind have been much fatigued during the time of 
this Conference. And if I were not deeply conscious of 
the truth and goodness of the cause in which I am engaged, 
I should by no means stay here. Lord! what a world is 
this! yea, what a religious world! O keep my heart pure, 
and my garments unspotted from the world ! Our Confer- 
ence ended on Friday with a comfortable intercession." * 



* Journal, I. Si. 



7 6 



American Methodism to 1784. 



Dr. Bangs' comment is that Rankin, in the faithful exer- 
cise of his superintendency, " set himself to purifying the 
societies from corrupt members and restoring things to or- 
der," and "it was soon found that the discharge of this 
duty, however painful, instead of abridging the influence of 
ministerial labor, greatly extended it, and exerted a most 
salutary effect upon the societies." * 

Dr. Stevens also records some judicious observations on 
the methods and results of Rankin's administration at this 
juncture: "The disciplinary views of Rankin, enforced 
during the preceding year, upon the preachers and Societies, 
with a rigor which seemed to some of them hardly tolerable, 
had produced salutary effects generally, as evinced by the 
growing efficiency of the denomination and an unexpected 
increase of its members. It had been regulated and consoli- 
dated and now presented generally an attitude of strength 
which gave assurance of a prosperous future. Rankin in- 
sisted with English firmness, if not obstinacy, that the method 
of procedure established in the British Conference should be 
rigorously followed by the present session. The principles 
of his administration were good, and necessary for the infant 
Church; but he seems to have been unhappy in his official 
manners. He had not the tact of Asbury to adapt himself 
to the free and easy spirit of the Americans, whose demo- 
cratic colonial training had thrown off punctiliousness with- 
out impairing their energy and devotion to general order. 
Even Asbury hesitated at his rigor, but was conciliated by 
seeing his own judgment followed in detail, though * stub- 
bornly opposed ' at first." t 

The 66 certain person " referred to in the extract from 
Asbury' s Journal is undoubtedly Rankin. We cannot now 
determine what were the precise differences between them. 
So far as these differences concerned" the business of the 
Conference, Asbury prevailed; so far as they related to 
Asbury' s appointment, Rankin moved him from Baltimore 
to New York, to exchange in three months with him- 



* Hist. M. E. Church, I. 80, 81. -\Ibid., I. 227, 228. 



The Annual Conferences to IJ7/. 



77 



self at Philadelphia. Asbury on the floor was more than a 
match for Rankin in the chair, since "his judgment was at 
last submitted to.'' He could afford to be "meek and pa- 
tient" as regards his appointment, since his official superior 
was guided by his better knowledge of the work and its 
needs. Let us judge Rankin, however, by results, and ac- 
cord him his due meed of praise. His own Journal as well 
as Asbury' s reveals that he was often discouraged and de- 
spondent. In '73. '74, and '75. he speaks in his Journal of 
the assembling of the "little conference: " it was in great 
contrast with what he had been accustomed to in England, 
and this dav of small things in America was a disappoint- 
ment to him. But he clung to his mission and. if not al- 
es 

ways with the best grace, vet with persistence and success, 
he carried forward the administration on Wesleyan lines. 

The alienation between him and Asbury, however, contin- 
ued. The following extracts from Asburv's Journal in the 
autumn of 1794 reveal its existence, and something of its 
nature : 

"Friday, Nov. 2. Mr. R. came to Burlington to-day, and 
desired me to go to Philadelphia. So. after preaching in 
the evening from Prov. xxviii. 13, I set off the next morning 
for the city; and found the Society in the spirit of love. 

64 Lord's-day 4. I preached twice with some freedom. 
The next day my mind was in a sweet, calm frame, and I 
felt a strong determination to devote myself wholly to God 
and his sendee. I spoke my mind to Mr. R.. but we did not 
agree in judgment. And it appeared to me, that to make 
any attempt to go to Baltimore would be all in vain [/. e., 
against the will of the General- Assistant, as the next entry 
shows] . 

" Tuesday 6. Visited some of my friends in the city [of 
Philadelphia] : and wrote a letter to Mr. Wesley, which I 
read to Mr. R. that he might see I intended no guile or secret 
dealings. It is somewhat grievous that he should prevent 
my going to Baltimore, after being acquainted with my en- 
gagements and the importunities of mv friends there. . . . 



7 8 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



The next day Mr. R. appeared to be very kind; so I hope 
all things will give place to love. 

" Lord's-day 11. Mr. R. preached a close sermon on 
the neglect of public worship 

" Wednesday 14. Mr. R. was sick, and Captain W. was 
busy, so I spent my time in study and devotion. . . . But 
what need can there be for two preachers here to preach 
three times a week to about sixty people ? This is indeed 
a very gloomy prospect. 

" Lord's-day 18. My soul was happy while preaching in 
the morning. Mr. S. gave us an old piece at Church; and 
Mr. R. was very furious in the evening [presumably vio- 
lent in preaching]. 

" Friday 23. In the evening I preached from these words, 
6 Neither give place to the devil:' and believe it was good 
for some that they were present." 

" Monday, Jan. 2, [1775]. At Mr. B.'s, where we dined 
to-day, I was much grieved at the manner of Mr. R.'s con- 
versation: but let it be a caution to me to be prudent and 
watchful. 

" Lord's-day 8. A letter from my friend W. L. informed 
me that three of my friends were coming to conduct me, if 
possible, to Baltimore. But it is a doubt with me if I shall, 
wdth consent, be permitted to go. 

44 On Monday the 30th some letters came from Baltimore 
earnestly pressing me to go. And Mr. R. was so kind as to 
visit me [Asbury was sick] ; when all was sweetness and love. 

"Thursday 16 [Feb.]. R. S. [Robert Strawbridge] 
wrote me abetter with his usual kindness; and informed me 
that Mr. D. concurred in sentiment relative to my going to 
Baltimore. And it is thought by many, that there will be an 
alteration in the affairs of our Church government. 

" Saturday 26. I packed up my clothes in order to depart 
on Monday morning for Baltimore. 

" Thursday, March 2. We then pursued our journey to 
Baltimore. The next day I had the pleasure of seeing our 
new house. Here are all my own with increase. 



The Annual Conferences to 1777. 



79 



44 Lord's-day 12. I saw Brother S. and entered into a free 
conversation with him. His sentiments relative to Mr. R. 
corresponded with mine. But all these matters I can silently 
commit to God, who overrules both in earth and heaven." * 

These extracts abundantly indicate that Asbury was deep- 
ly dissatisfied that Mr. Rankin would not permit him to re- 
turn to labor in Baltimore. Both were good men. We 
have now no means of judging of the merits of Mr. Rankin's 
appointments. Rankin was firm. Asbury was not inclined 
to yield. He submitted the case to Mr. Wesley; but frank- 
ly showed his letter to Rankin before sending it. Asbury 
took the matter so seriously that he began to anticipate, with 
others, " an alteration in the affairs of our Church govern- 
ment." It will be remembered that under the Boardman 
administration he had declared, 44 I have not yet the thing I 
seek — a circulation of preachers to avoid partiality and pop- 
ularity. I am fixed to the Methodist plan. I am deter- 
mined to make a stand against all partiality." But it looks 
a little as if it was difficult for him, under Rankin, to take 
his own medicine. His friends were continually beseeching 
him by letter and embassy to come to Baltimore. At last, 
before the meeting of the next Conference, he 44 packed 
up" and went; whether with or without the 44 consent" of 
the General- Assistant we are not told. 

Rankin also wrote to Wesley. 44 It was Asbury's misfor- 
tune as long as Wesley lived," says Bishop McTyeire, 44 to 
be misrepresented to him by weak but well-meaning men 
whom he overshadowed, or by designing men whom he 
overruled."! As a general proposition this is perhaps true. 
It is also true that by every token and standard Asbury was 
a greater man than Rankin, better adapted to, and better 
acquainted with, the American work. But in this affair of 
his Baltimore appointment, x\sbury himself made the appeal 
to Wesley against the legitimate authority, whether wisely 
or unwisely exercised, of his American representative. In 
his reply to Rankin under date of March 1, 1775, Mr. Wes- 



* Asbury's Journal, I. 101-109 (extracts). | McTyeire, Hist, of Meth., p. 285. 



8o 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



ley says: "As soon as possible, you must come to a full and 
clear explanation, both with brother Asbury (if he is re- 
covered) and with Jemmy Dempster. But I advise brother 
Asbury to return to England the first opportunity." * 

The Revolution was coming on; the preachers were in 
danger of political entanglements; Mr. Wesley inclosed in 
his communication to the General-Assistant a letter to all 
the preachers, whose pertinency and wisdom in those troub- 
lous times warrants its reproduction here: 

44 London, March 1, 1775. 

"My dear Brethren : You were never in your lives in so 
critical a situation as you are at this time. It is your part to 
be peace makers; to be loving and tender to all; but to ad- 
dict yourselves to no party. In spite of all solicitations, of 
rough or smooth words, say not one word against one or the 
other side. Keep yourselves pure; do all you can to help 
and soften all; but beware how you adopt another's jar. 

44 See that you act in full union with each other: this is 
of the utmost consequence. Not only let there be no bit- 
terness or anger, but no shyness or coldness, between you. 
Mark all those that would set one of you against the other. 
Some such will never be wanting. But give them no coun- 
tenance ; rather ferret them out, and drag them into open day. 

44 The conduct of T. Rankin has been suitable to the 
Methodist plan: I hope all of you tread in his steps. Let 
your eye be single. Be in peace with each other, and the 
God of peace will be with you. 

44 1 am, my dear brethren, 

44 Your affectionate brother, 

44 John Wesley." f 

April 21, 1775, Wesley writes Rankin again, 44 Brother 
Asbury has sent me a few lines, and I thank him for them. 
But I do not advise him to go to Antigua. Let him come 
home without delay. If one or two stout, healthy young 
men would willingly offer themselves to that service, I 
should have no objection." J Again, May 19, 1775, he 



Wesley's Works, Airier, ed., VII. 7, 8. t Ibid - Z I6id -> P- 9- 



The Annual Conferences to 1777. 



81 



writes, " I doubt not but Asbury and you will part friends: 
I shall hope to see him at the [English] Conference. He is 
quite an upright man. I apprehend he will go through his 
work more cheerfully when he is within a little distance 
from me."* July 28, Mr. Wesley says, "I rejoice, too, 
over honest Francis Asbury, and hope he will no more enter 
into temptation." Finally, Aug. 13, when he had learned 
of Asbury' s appointment for another year's labor, Wesley 
writes, "I am not sorry that Brother Asbury stays with you 
another year. In that time it will be seen what God will do 
with North America, and you will easily judge whether our 
preachers are called to remain any longer therein. If they 
are, God will make their way plain, and give them favor 
even with the men that delight in war." f 

And so the matter ended. It will be noticed that in his 
letter of April 21, Wesley advises against Asbury's going to 
Antigua — partly, no doubt, on account of his feeble health. 
It appears that previously he had favored the project. So 
this extract from Asbury's Journal implies: " Wednesday 23 
[Feb. 1775]. I received a letter from Miss G. [Gilbert], 
at Antigua, in which she informed me that Mr. G. [Francis 
Gilbert] was going away; and as there are about three hun- 
dred members in society, she entreats me to go and labor 
amongst them. And as Mr. Wesley has given his consent, 
I feel inclined to go, and take one of the young men with 
me. But there is one obstacle in my way — the administra- 
tion of the ordinances. It is possible to get the ordination 
of a presbytery; but this would be incompatible with Meth- 
odism; which would be an effectual bar in my way." % 

Upon the possible consequences of this early removal of 
the Apostle of American Methodism it is useless to speculate: 
more important is it to note, in view of his subsequent ordi- 
nation as Deacon, Elder, and Bishop, that this Episcopalian, 
whatever may have been the force of Strawbridge's exam- 
ple, did not regard the "ordination of a presbytery" as 
compatible with Methodism. 

* Wesley's Works, Amer. ed., VII. 9. f Page 11. J Journal, I. 107. 
6 



82 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



II. The Conference of 1JJ5. 

The Third Annual Conference assembled as before under 
the presidency of Mr. Rankin in the city of Philadelphia, 
Wednesday, May 17, 1775, and adjourned Friday the 19th. 
It followed by a few months the session of the Colonial Con- 
gress in the same city. The same questions are asked in 
the same order as at the preceding Conference, with the 
omission of Question 4; though the preachers, of course, 
passed an examination of character. 44 Question 5. What 
numbers are there in Society?" was answered as follows: 
44 New York, 200; Philadelphia, 190; New Jersey, 300; 
Chester, 74; Kent, 253; Baltimore, 840; Frederick, 336; 
Fairfax, 30; Norfolk, 125; Brunswick, 800:" the total was 
3,148, with nineteen preachers. 

In the list of appointments, James Dempster appears as the 
Assistant at New York; Martin Rodda, at Baltimore; 
George Shadford, on the Brunswick work, with William 
Glendenning among his 44 helpers;" Asbury is sent alone 
to Norfolk, and Strawbridge's name again appears as a 
44 helper" on the Frederick work, of which William Wal- 
ters is preacher in charge. 

At the close of the list of appointments are the following 
directions and agreements: 

44 Thomas Rankin is to travel till the month of December, 
and then take a quarter in New York. 

44 The preachers in New Jersey to change in one quarter. 

44 Webster and Cooper to change with Gatch and Watters 
at the end of six months. 

44 The preachers in Brunswick and Hanover, to change as 
the Assistant thinks proper. 

44 Thomas Rankin's deficiencies to be paid out of the 
yearly collection. 

44 The preachers' expenses from Conference to their cir- 
cuit to be paid out of the yearly collection. 

44 A general fast for the prosperity of the work, and for 
the peace of America, on Tuesday, the 18th of July." * 

* Minutes, ed. of 1813, pp. 9, 10. 



The Annual Conferences to 1777- 



83 



The Conference collection, it will be noticed, was now 
burdened with the deficiencies in the General-Assistant's 
support, and with the expenses of the preachers from the 
seat of the Conference to their circuits. 

The names of three new English preachers appear on 
the Conference roll: Rodda and Dempster were new mis- 
sionaries who had arrived at New York in the autumn 
of 1774? and had relieved Asbury at John Street, when he 
joined Rankin at Philadelphia and was anxious to proceed 
still further south. Glendenning appears to have accom- 
panied them as a volunteer, as Yearbry did Rankin and 
Shadford. Dempster and Glendenning finally abandoned 
Methodism ; and Rodda left the country on account of po- 
litical imprudences. 

Of the Conference, Rankin says, " We conversed togeth- 
er and concluded our business in love. We wanted all the 
advice and light we could obtain respecting our conduct in 
the present critical situation of affairs. We came unani- 
mously to this conclusion, to follow the advice that Mr. 
Wesley and his brother had given us,* and leave the event 
to God." 

Brother Asbury was gratified with a c< circulation of 
preachers," for he was sent, not to Baltimore but to Norfolk, 
a feeble and undisciplined Society. " From Wednesday 
till Friday we spent in Conference," he says, "with great 
harmony and sweetness of temper." He departed for his 
new work uncomplainingly and with the hopefulness of a 
true Methodist preacher: " I am now bending my course 
towards Norfolk to preach the glad tidings of salvation to 
perishing sinners there. . . . With a thankful heart I land- 
ed at Norfolk." f And at Norfolk and Portsmouth he did 
a good work. He reports finding only " 30 persons in so- 
ciety after their manner; but they had no regular class- 
meetings." One hundred and twenty-five members had 
been reported at the Conference: so even in those days 
there was some looseness all around. However, he men- 



See Wesley's Works, Amer. ed., vii. 8, with footnote. | Journal, I. 114. 



§4 



tions preaching to 150 souls immediately on his arrival 
and having an audience of 50 at 5 o'clock in the morning.* 

III. The Conference of 1J76. 

For the first time the Conference met in the city of Balti- 
more, Tuesday, May 21, 1776, Rankin presiding as usual. It 
was held in Lovely Lane Chapel, the second Methodist 
house of worship built in the city. 

Five preachers were admitted into full connection, and 
nine on trial, among whom were Freeborn Garrettson and 
Francis Poythress. 66 1 attended," says Garrettson, £t passed 
through an examination, was admitted on trial, and my 
name was, for the first time, classed among the Methodists; 
I received of Mr. Rankin a written license." Poythress, 
Asbury, in 1797, nominated for the episcopate. Nine preach- 
ers are named as Assistants, the first four being Thomas Ran- 
kin, Francis Asbury, Martin Rodda, and George Shadford; 
Rankin, however, left his own name off the list of regular ap- 
pointments, partly, perhaps, because his general duties no 
longer admitted of his giving a definite period of service to 
any circuit, and partly because the war of the Revolution was 
making his stay in America uncertain. Asbury is again ap- 
pointed superintendent of the Baltimore circuit. 4,921 mem- 
bers are reported in Society, of whom 1,611 are from Bruns- 
wick, 900 from Baltimore, and 683 from North Carolina. 
In the north there is a falling off, New York reporting but 
132, Philadelphia but 137, and New Jersey 150: this is 
largely due to the war, military operations pressing heavily 
upon those regions. Twenty-four preachers receive ap- 
pointments: with the General- Assistant, there were twenty- 
five itinerants. July 26th is appointed a day of general 
fasting. f 

Of the Conference, Watters says, <{ We were of one heart 
and mind, and took sweet counsel together, not how we 
should get riches or honors, or anything that this poor world 



* Journal, I. 114. f Minutes, ed. of 1813, pp. 11, 12. 



The Annual Conferences to IJJJ '. 



85 



could afford us; but how we should make the surest work 
for heaven, and be the instruments of saving others." 

Asbury did not attend the Conference. Sunday, May 5, 
he is at Philadelphia, but in a dejected frame of mind: 
" Lord's-day 12. Divine grace assisted and comforted me 
in all the exercises of the day. But the next day I was 
seized with a severe chill, and was carried to my lodging 
very sick; nevertheless set out the next day, if possible, to 
reach the Conference: and came to Chester that night. 
Wednesday 15. Attempted to reach a quarterly meeting, 
but when I got to the place was obliged to go to bed. 
Though the next day, weak as I was, I went and held a 

love-feast, and afterward preached Was very unwell 

all the Lord's-day, [Sunday, May 19] but my great desire to 
be at Conference induced me to make an attempt, on Mon- 
day, to travel. But by the time I had rode three miles, I 
found if I traveled, it would be at the hazard of my life: and 
was therefore obliged to decline it, though the disappointment 
was very great." The next day the Conference sat. On 
the following Monday the sick itinerant says, " Expecting 
the preachers were on their return from the Conference, I 
appointed preaching at my lodgings, but had to preach my- 
self, to a small, attentive, tender company, and felt much 
quickened in my soul. At night brother R. arrived and in- 
formed me that I was appointed for Baltimore: to which I 
cheerfully submit, though it seems to be against my bodily 
health."* 

IV. The Conference of 17 JJ. 

The Fifth Annual Conference convened 44 At a Preaching- 
House, near Deer Creek, in Harford County, Maryland," 
Tuesday, "May 20, 1777."! Over this Conference Ran- 
kin presided, as he had over all preceding ones. 

The Minutes record eight questions, asked and answered. 
The first six are the same in matter and order as those asked 

*Asbury's Journal, I. 137, 138. 

j" Minutes, ed. of 1813, p. 13: the day of the week is fixed by Asburj's 
Journal. 



86 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



at the Conference of 1774. " Question 4. Are there any 
objections to any of the Preachers?" having been omitted 
during two sessions, so far as the Minutes show, is now re- 
stored. "They were examined one by one " is the answer 
as before. Eight preachers are admitted into full connec- 
tion, and fourteen on trial, among whom are Caleb B. Pedi- 
cord, John Tunnell, John Littlejohn, Lee Roy Cole, John 
Dickins, and Reuben Ellis. Fourteen Assistants, or Super- 
intendents of circuits, are named, of whom the first seven 
are, " Thomas Rankin, Francis Asbury, Martin Rodda, 
George Shadford, Edward Drumgole, William Watters, 
Philip Gatch;" but the names of Rankin and Asbury do 
not appear in the list of appointments: neither was definite- 
ly assigned to work. Before the next Conference Rankin 
returned to England. Asbury was seriously debating the 
question. But the same is true of Rodda and Shadford, 
both of whom, like Rankin, i-eturned to England before the 
next Conference; yet they were placed in charge of impor- 
tant circuits, Kent and Baltimore. Asbury' s failure to take 
an appointment, therefore, is not fully explained; though 
Rankin's general duties excuse him, as at the preceding Con- 
ference. There were fifteen circuits in all; but New York 
is left without a preacher, doubtless on account of the war, 
the city being then occupied by the British. There are 6,- 
968 members in Society, of whom 1,360 are reported from 
Brunswick; 900 from Baltimore; 930 from North Carolina; 
726 from Kent; 160 from New Jersey; and 96 each from 
New York and Philadelphia. Friday, July 25, was appoint- 
ed as a fast-day. Two questions are appended, one touch- 
ing the consecration and steadfastness of the preachers in 
those times that tried men's souls,- and the other concerning 
the abuse of funeral sermons: " Jthies. 7. As the present 
distress is such, are the preachers resolved to take no step to 
detach themselves from the work of God for the ensuing 
year? Ans. We purpose, by the grace of God, not to take 
any step that may separate us from the brethren, or from 
the blessed work in which we are engaged. J^jies. 8. Has 



The Annual Conferences to iyyy. 



8 7 



not the preaching of funeral sermons been carried so far as 
to prostitute that venerable custom, and in some sort to ren- 
der it contemptible ? Ans. Yes : therefore let all the preach- 
ers inform every society, that we will not preach any but 
for those who we have reason to think died in the fear and 
favor of God." * 

From the Minutes, it would appear that this was all the 
business transacted. But there are other contemporaneous 
and reliable sources of information. At this very Confer- 
ence, as we have seen, Philip Gatch was named an Assist- 
ant. To Gatch's MS. journal, Dr. Leroy M. Lee had ac- 
cess and makes this extract of questions asked at the Con- 
ference of 1777: ^Jthies. What shall be done with respect 
to the ordinances? Ans. Let the preachers and people 
pursue the old plan as from the beginning. J^iies. What 
alteration may we make in our original plan? Ans. Our 
next Conference will, if God permit, show us more clear- 
ly."t 

There is other evidence that the question of the sacra- 
ments was still a burning one. Asbury, whether designedly 
or by seizing an unexpected and most favorable opportunity, 
held a " caucus" before the meeting of Conference, and 
outlined its business, as well as made a 4 4 slate" of appoint- 
ments. A long note in his Journal gives an account of this 
preliminary meeting, and also most affecting details of 
scenes at the Conference itself: 

" Monday 12. Set out for our yearly conference, and 
having preached at Mr. P.'s by the way, came safe to Mr. 
G.'s, and was glad to see the preachers who were there. 
We had some weighty conversation on different points: and 
among other things, it was asked whether we could give our 
consent that Mr. R. [Rankin] should baptize, as there ap- 
peared to be a present necessity. But it was objected that 
this would be a breach of our discipline; and it was not 
probable that things would continue long in such a disor- 
dered state. The next day, with great harmony and joint 

* Minutes, ed. of 1813, pp. 14, 15. |Life and Times of Jesse Lee, p. 78. 



88 



American Methodism to 1784. 



consent, we drew a rough draught for stationing the preach- 
ers the ensuing year. And on Friday we conversed on the 
propriety of signing certificates avouching good conduct for 
such of the preachers as chose to go to Europe. But I 
could not see the propriety of it at this time. We also con- 
versed on such rules as might be proper for the regulation 
of the preachers who abide on the continent. And it was 
judged necessary that a committee should be appointed to 
superintend the whole. And on Monday we rode together 
to attend the Conference at Deer-Creek. 

" So greatly has the Lord increased the number of trav- 
eling preachers within these few years, that we have now 
twenty-seven who attend the circuits, and twenty of them 
were present at this conference. Both our public and pri- 
vate business was conducted with great harmony, peace, 
and love. Our brethren who intend to return to Europe, 
have agreed to stay till the way is quite open. Our Confer- 
ence ended with a love-feast and watch-night. But when 
the time of parting came, many wept as if they had lost 
their first-born sons. They appeared to be in the deepest 
distress, thinking, as I suppose, they should not see the 
faces of the English preachers any more. This was such a 
parting as I never saw before. ... A certificate, as 
mentioned above, had been acceded to, and signed in the 
Conference." * 

Part of the prearranged programme, it is seen, miscar- 
ried: the departing English preachers were granted certifi- 
cates, which were signed in open Conference. In view of 
Rankin's approaching departure, which would leave the 
American work without an official head, government by a 
committee, as suggested in Asbury's preliminary meeting, 
was adopted. The Minutes say nothing of it; but this is 
not strange: there is satisfactory evidence, as we have 
seen, of their incompleteness on other heads. " There ap- 
pearing no probability of the contest between Great Britain 
and this country ending shortly," says Watters, 44 several 



* Asbury's Journal, I. 186. 



The Annual Conferences to 1777. 



8 9 



of our European preachers thought that, if an opportunity 
should offer, they would return to their home in the course 
of the year. To provide against such an event five of us, 
Gatch, Dromgoole, Ruff, Glendenning, and myself, were 
appointed a committee to act in the place of the general as- 
sistant in case they should all go before the next Confer- 
ence. It was also submitted to the consideration of this 
Conference whether in our present situation, of having but 
few ministers left in many of our parishes to administer the 
ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper, we should not 
administer them ourselves. ... In fact, we considered 
ourselves, at this time, as belonging to the Church of En- 
gland. After much conversation on the subject, it was unan- 
imously agreed to lay it over for the determination of the 
next Conference, to be held in Leesburg, the 19th of 
May." 

The Rev. John Lednum, in his History of the Rise of 
Methodism in America, also names the Committee of Con- 
trol: William Watters, Philip Gatch, Daniel Ruff, Edward 
Dromgoole, and William Glendenning.* Watters as the 
oldest native itinerant presided in the succeeding Confer- 
ence of 1778, and was clearly the head of the committee and 
of the provisional government. 

This government by committee, until the distress of the 
times should be overpast, was doubtless suggested by As- 
bury: he carefully records it as part of the proceedings of 
the meeting held a week before Conference, in which he 
was the master spirit. Why he was not placed at the head 
of the committee is unaccountable, unless American antag- 
onism to the English made it expedient, if not necessary, 
that an American should be at this time the official head of 
American Methodism. McKendree became later the first 
American Bishop: to Watters must be given the honor of 
being the first American chief of administration, exercising, 
with his colleagues, a superintendency for a time during the 
troublous period of the Revolution. If the unacceptability 



*Page 190. 



9° 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



of an English preacher was Asbury's reason for not taking 
an appointment at this Conference, all the more was it inex- 
pedient that he should be appointed head of the Committee 
of Control. 

This completes, we believe, the sum total of what is 
known of this important Conference, the last of General- 
Assistant Rankin's administration. The view that Asbury's 
disabilities arose from the political complications of the 
times, is rendered highly probable, if not certain, by his 
Journal: if the prudent Asbury was thus handicapped and 
finally forced into retirement, it cannot be a matter of sur- 
prise that the other English preachers felt compelled to 
leave the country. Thursday, June 20, 1776, Asbury 
"went to Nathan Perrig's, and was fined five pounds for 
preaching the gospel." * Tuesday, Jan. 21, 1777, he re- 
cords: "A messenger from Mr. G.'s met me at the Widow 
B.'s, informing me that Mr. R — a [Rodda] and Mr. G. S. 
[George Shadford] were there waiting to see me. After 
preaching I set out, and met my brethren the same night, 
and found them inclined to leave America and embark for 
England. But I had before resolved not to depart from the 
work on any consideration. After some consultation it 
was thought best that Mr. R — a should go to Mr. R — n 
[Rankin] and request his attendance here." f March 26, 
he received a letter from Shadford 66 intimating that accord- 
ing to rule, the time was drawing near for us to return." 
Asbury makes significant comment, 44 But St. Paul's rule 
is, that our spiritual children should be in our hearts to live 
and die with them." { His resolution 44 not to depart from 
the work " began, however, to be shaken. Monday, March 
30, he 44 was under some exercise of mind in respect to the 
times: my brethren are inclined to leave the continent, and 
I do not know but something may be propounded to me 
which would touch my conscience," but April 2, 44 Having 
received information that some of my brethren had deter- 
mined on their departure, I wrote to Brother S. [Shadford] 



* Journal, I. 141. -\ Ibid., I. 176. %Ibid., I. 182. 



The Annual Conferences to 



9 1 



that as long as I could stay and preach without injuring 
my conscience, it appeared as my duty to abide with the 
flock. But I must confess that Satan has harassed me with 
violent and various temptations."* This is his last entry 
bearing on the subject before the Conference of 1777. It 
leaves the question of remaining or departing unsettled, but 
with the scale very decidedly inclined toward " abiding with 
the flock." Either (1) the probability of departure, or (2) 
the unacceptability of a non-juring English preacher, to the 
civil authorities and partly to his congregations, constituted a 
sufficient reason for Asbury's not taking an appointment, 
and still more for his not being placed on the Committee of 
Control. Yet, as we have seen, both Rodda, the most in- 
judicious and offensive of the English preachers, and Shad- 
ford, took appointments ; and Glendenning was on the Com- 
mittee of Control. There is an irreducible remainder of 
mystery in every explanation of Asbury's failure to take 
work at this Conference, or to be assigned to a share in the 
provisional government. That he was not in close sympa- 
thy with the departing Englishmen (except Shadford, who 
lingered to the last) is evident. He was personally opposed 
to granting them certificates of character to be presented in 
England on their return. His language implies that he 
hardly shared in the general grief at parting with them at 
Conference. "They [the other preachers] appeared to be 
in the deepest distress, thinking, as I suppose, they should 
not see the faces of the English preachers any more." 
Some lingering root of bitterness may have caused Rankin 
to refuse him, or Asbury to decline, work. If Rankin ap- 
pointed or nominated the Committee of Control, he may 
have designedly left off Asbury's name. 

About two months after Conference, July 21, 1777, As- 
bury makes a sad entry in his Journal: " Heard Mr. Ran- 
kin preach his last sermon. My mind was a little dejected; 
and I now felt some desire to return to England, but was 
willing to commit the matter to the Lord." t Mr. Rankin 



* Journal, I. 182, 183. "\ Ibid., I. 190. 



9 2 American Methodism to 1J84.. 

spent the winter in Philadelphia, left the capes of Delaware, 
March 17, 1778, and arrived at Cork, April 15. 

After a careful and candid survey of all the material 
facts, I am inclined to a more favorable judgment of Gener- 
al-Assistant Rankin and his administration than our histori- 
ans generally have embodied in their pages. His great 
services in the founding of American Methodism have 
scarcely been appreciated to the full. He remained in 
America more than four years, faithfully administering his 
high trust in the midst of ecclesiastical difficulties and po- 
litical convulsions which would have speedily sent a weak 
man flying from his post. He convened the first Annual 
Conference, and presided with dignity, firmness, and much 
wisdom in five of these general assemblies. He purified 
and consolidated the American societies, conforming them 
more closely to the English disciplinary model. When he 
came there were 1,160 members, with ten preachers; when 
he departed, 6,968 members, with 36 preachers. To be 
sure, these results were not all due to his personal labors; 
but some men in his position could have cast ruin and 
blight all about them: he conserved the fruits and extended 
the work. He retained the confidence and affection of 
Wesley, who habitually addresses him as "Dear Tommy." 
He made mistakes; but possibly no more and no other 
than were inseparable from his limitations as an Eng- 
lishman, newly arrived in America. "Peculiarities he 
certainly had," says a contemporary, 44 which sometimes 
prevented his being as useful as otherwise he would have 
been." Asbury was in every respect an abler man and, 
as a natural leader, saw these mistakes clearly. Even 
in a subordinate position he chafed under them; some- 
times he succeeded in overruling them. Human nature 
being constituted as it is, this chafing was in part un- 
avoidable; but in the matter of his own appointment to 
Baltimore, he seems, with unnecessary if not ill-judged per- 
sistence, to have embarrassed the administration of his ec- 
clesiastical superior, even though that administration was 



The Annual Conferences to iJJJ. 



93 



confessedly not faultless. So Mr. Wesley judged, after 
hearing both parties to the issue, and that without impeach- 
ing the integrity of either. Rankin departed. Asbury re- 
mained; and, as the Apostle of American Methodism, made 
a sublime and splendid record of suffering and achievement, 
hardly paralleled since the days of St. Paul, which has to- 
tally eclipsed the humbler and briefer labors of his faithful 
predecessor in the general superintendency. But the Amer- 
ican Church would dishonor herself, should she withhold 
his meed of praise from Thomas Rankin, first President of 
an American Methodist Conference, and first General- As- 
sistant,* superintending the interests and molding the des- 
tinies of our Methodism. Appropriately does Stevens grace 
the first volume of his great History of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church with a frontispiece which reproduces the lin- 
eaments of his noble countenance. We may rejoice for the 
sake of the departing Superintendent, that his last Confer- 
ence was " a season of uncommon affection," and that 
" when the time of parting came, many wept as if they had 
lost their firstborn sons." 

Thus closed the first period in the history of the American 
Conferences: the period of close communication with En- 
gland and of the occupancy of the Conference Chair by 
Mr. Wesley's appointed delegate and representative. 
But the war effectually cut off communication with the 
home office; and with the Conference of 1778, William 
Watters, the American, in the Chair, begins a new era, 
which continues till 1784, when Mr. Wesley's hand again 
appears and his control again asserts itself. 

This era, however, naturally divides itself into two pe- 
riods: the first of discord and disunion, 1 778-1 780; the sec- 
ond of peace and prosperity, 1781-1784. With these two 
periods the two chapters following will be occupied. 



*Boardman and Asbury had borne only the title "Assistant," the work 
in its infancy being regarded as a single circuit. 



CHAPTER VII. 



DISCORD AND DISUNION: I778-I780. 



/. The Conference of 1778. 

THE Sixth Annual Conference convened at Leesburg, 
Va., May 19, 1778. The office of General-Assistant 
had been, to use the English phrase, " put in commission;" 
and William Watters, the senior native itinerant, and the 
chief of this commission, presided in the Conference. He 
was but twenty-seven years of age and modestly says : 

Having no old preachers with us, we were as orphans bereft of our spir- 
itual parents; but though young and inexperienced in business, the Lord 
looked graciously upon us, and had the uppermost seat in all our hearts, 
and of course in our meeting. As the consideration of the administration of 
the ordinances was laid over, at the last Conference, till this, it of course 
came up and found many advocates. It was with considerable difficulty 
that a large majority was prevailed on to lay it over again till the next Con- 
ference, hoping that we should, by that time, be able to see our way more 
clear in so important a change. 

Watters' name is placed first in the list of Assistants on 
account of his seniority and presidency: it thus stands in the 
place Rankin's had filled in the Minutes of every Conference 
since 1774, when the Assistants were first enumerated under 
a separate question. 

This was the first session held in Virginia, " the chief 
field of Methodism, comprising nearly two thirds of its mem- 
bers." * The returns from the circuits are not given in de- 
tail. The total number of members is 6,095. Only twenty- 
nine itinerants receive appointments. It is the first time in 
the history of American Methodism that the Minutes show a 
decrease of ministers and members. 

The following new questions appear: 

Ques. 6. Who shall act as general stewards? Ans. William Moore, Hen- 
ry Fry. 

Ques. 7. What was done with the balance of the collection? Ans. 
Lodged with Henry Fry. 



(94) 



* Stevens, Hist. M. E. Ch., II. 43. 



Discord and Disunion: 1778-1780. 



95 



Ques. 8. What shall the preachers be allowed for quarterage? Ans. 
Eight pounds Virginia currency.* 

The depreciation of the currency, Jesse Lee explains, 
brought about the increased allowance — £32 -per annum — 
to the preachers. The last Friday in August was appointed 
for a fast day. 

Stevens says there were thirty preachers ; f the Minutes 
say twenty-nine: Stevens includes, the Minutes exclude, As- 
bury. He was not present; he did not receive an appoint- 
ment; his name does not appear in the list of Assistants. 
Strictly speaking he was a local preacher. Of course no- 
body supposed his retirement to be permanent; his connec- 
tion with the Conference was easily resumed; " supplies," 
as we should call them now, were so frequently called in 
from the local ranks that scarcely any distinction existed be- 
tween local and traveling preachers ; moreover, the question, 
44 Who are located this year? " or 44 Who desist from travel- 
ing? " was not yet asked at the Conference sessions, so that 
no record of location occurs in Asbury's case, any more than 
in scores of others. Asbury's position and influence were 
undiminished; but at this juncture the name of the great 
Bishop disappears completely from the records of the Annu- 
al Conference. Officially speaking, it was now but a slen- 
der thread that bound him to American Methodism. 

Ezekiel Cooper says, in his Funeral Discourse at the 
death of Bishop Asbury, that in March, 1778, George Shad- 
ford and Mr. Asbury observed a season of fasting and 
prayer, to know the will of God concerning their with- 
drawal from America, and that 44 Shadford concluded, and 
observed that he had an answer to leave the country and 
return to England; but Asbury, who received an answer to 
stay, replied: 4 If you are called to go, I am called to stay; so 
we must part.' " Thus, then, and at this comparatively late 
date, did Asbury reach his all-important decision, so fraught 
with unnumbered blessings to Methodism and America. 



* Minutes, ed. 1813, pp. 16, 17. fHist. M. E. Ch., II. 44. 



9 6 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



According to Jesse Lee, " Mr. Asbury began to lie by at 
Thomas White's in Delaware, March 5, 1778." Asbury 
himself dated his " confinement" from March 10, as the 
following entry under Saturday, April 11, will show: 

And I know not what to determine, whether to deliver myself into the 
hands of men, to embrace the first opportunity to depart, or to wait till 
Providence shall farther direct. The reason of this retirement was as fol- 
lows: From March 10, 1778, on conscientious principles I was a non-juror, 
and could not preach in the State of Maryland, and therefore withdrew to 
the Delaware State, where the clergy were not required to take the State 
oath, though with a clear conscience I could have taken the oath of the Del- 
aware State had it been required* 

Asbury's headquarters, during his retirement, were at 
Judge White's, in Kent County, Delaware. It afforded op- 
portunity for close study and protracted devotions, which he 
faithfully improved. He was ''confined" only about five 
weeks; with the exception of eleven he traveled more or 
less. His improved treatment is supposed to have been due 
to the fact that about 1779 " a letter which he wrote to 
Rankin in 1777, in which he gave it as his opinion that the 
Americans would become a free and independent nation, 
that he was too much knit in affection to many of them to 
leave them, and that Methodist preachers had a great work 
to do under God, in this country, had fallen into the hands 
of the American officers, and had produced a great change 
in their opinions and feelings toward him." f 

Gatch and Garrettson confirm the testimony of Watters 
that the sacramental question was unanimously deferred to 
the Conference of 1779. " I was present," says Mr. Gar- 
rettson, " and the answer was, 'Lay it over until the next 
Conference,' which was appointed to be held in Fluvanna 
County, Virginia, May 18, 1779, at what was called the 
Brokenback Church." Thus the Conference stood ad- 
journed to meet the following year at a designated time and 
place. But before that time and at another place, a Confer- 
ence assembled whose proceedings our narrative will have to 
take into account. 



* Journal, I. 208. |Lednum, p. 226. 



Discord and Disunion: ijj8—ij8o. 



97 



II. The Two Conferences of 1779 — A Threatened Schism: 
A Conservative North versus A Progressive South. 

The first Conference of the year was held at the home of 
Judge White, in Kent County, Del., beginning Wednesday, 
April 28. This was done chiefly for the convenience of 
Asbury, who, as we have seen, had been there confined, and 
could not yet safely venture into Maryland and Virginia. 
He, doubtless, presided and brought forward the business. 
Of the meeting he says : 

Our Conference for the Northern stations began at Thomas White's. 
All our preachers on these stations -were present, and united. We had 
much prayer, love, and harmony ; and we all agreed to walk by the same 
rule and to mind the same thing. As we had great reason to fear that our 
brethren to the southward were in danger of separating from us, we wrote 
them a soft, healing epistle. On these Northern stations we have now about 
seventeen traveling preachers. W T e appointed our next Conference to be 
held in Baltimore town, the last Tuesday in April next.* 

Postponing the questions of the authority by which this 
Conference was called and of the strict legality of its trans- 
actions, we first consider what was done. " Ques. 3. Who 
desist from traveling?" appears for the first time in the 
Minutes of this session. Trouble with the preachers of the 
Southern and regular Conference is further indicated by the 
following pledge which the preachers present made, " Ques. 
6. Who of the preachers are willing to take the station this 
Conference shall place them in, and continue till next Con- 
ference?" Sixteen preachers sign this agreement, with 
Francis Asbury at their head, and including such men as 
William Watters, Freeborn and Richard Garrettson, Caleb 
B. Pedicord, William Gill, and Daniel Ruff. 

The authority of an Assistant, or preacher in charge, is 
defined and formally increased, though these powers he had 
doubtless long exercised by custom and common consent. 
"No helper," say the Minutes, "is to make any alteration 
in the circuit, or appoint preaching in any new place, with- 
out consulting the Assistant: every exhorter and local 
preacher to go by the directions of the assistants where, 



7 



* Journal, I. 237, 238. 



98 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



and only where they shall appoint." Exhorters, local 
preachers, and junior preachers, or "helpers," continue 
thus under the direction of the preacher in charge, or " as- 
sistant," to this day. 

" Ques. 8. Why was the Delaware Conference held? " is 
intended to justify the somewhat extraordinary proceedings 
of the Conference. The answer is, " For the convenience 
of the preachers in the Northern stations, that we all might 
have an opportunity of meeting in Conference ; it being un- 
advisable for brother Asbury and brother Ruff, with some 
others, to attend in Virginia; it is considered also as 
preparatory to the Conference in Virginia. Our sentiments 
to be given in by brother Watters." 

On these points more remains to be said. " Ques. 10. 
Shall we guard against a separation from the Church, di- 
rectly or indirectly?" is answered "By all means." The 
final questions, which complete the business of the Confer- 
ence, are quite remarkable in their character; especially if 
these sixteen preachers regarded themselves merely as a 
preparatory Conference. 

Ques. 12. Ought not brother Asbury to act as General Assistant in Amer- 
ica? He ought: 1st, on account of his age; 2d, because originally appointed 
by Mr. Wesley; 3d, being joined with Messrs. Rankin and Shadford, by ex- 
press order from Mr. Wesley. Ques. 13. How far shall his power extend? 
On hearing every preacher for and against what is in debate, the right of 
determination shall rest with him, according to the Minutes.* 

When the Delaware Conference adjourned the legal or 
governmental situation is perhaps not inaccurately described 
as follows : 

(1) An irregular Conference composed of a small minor- 
ity of preachers had been unexpectedly, if not illegally, con- 
vened, in advance of the regular and unquestionably legal 
session. Watters, the only preacher who attended both the 
"preparatory" and "regular" sessions, received "no no- 
tice" of the irregular meeting, but, hearing of it, "deter- 
mined, if possible" to get there, that he might persuade 



*For all the preceding, see Minutes, ed. of 1813, pp. 18-20. 



Discord and Disunion : iyy8—ij8o. 



99 



"Asbury to attend the regularly appointed Conference, to 
be held on the 18th of May, 1779, in Fluvanna County."* 
Garrettson calls it "a little Conference," " called by the 
Northern brethren," for their "convenience," and adds, 
" In May, 1779, the regular Conference was held, according 
to appointment," etc.f If Watters was not notified, it is not 
likely that others in the South were : only those were invited, 
it would seem, who were known to agree on the main sacra- 
mental point at issue. Asbury describes it as " a Confer- 
ence for the Northern stations." 

(2) Sixteen preachers, including Watters, agree to re- 
ceive their appointments at the "preparatory" Conference 
(no doubt from Asbury himself, in view of the answers to 
Questions 12 and 13) and to remain in their stations until 
the next session of the irregular body, no matter what might 
be the action and appointments at the regular Conference. 
As a matter of fact no one of the sixteen, except Watters, 
even gave his presence at the regular session. 

(3) Though styling themselves a " preparatory " Confer- 
ence, these sixteen, by their answer to Question 10, con- 
cerning separation from the Church of England, decided 
the sacramental controversy, absolutely and finally, against 
the administration of the sacraments by Methodist preach- 
ers, without waiting to consult the sentiments, or attempting 
to change the convictions, of the majority of the preachers, 
who were about to assemble in regular session the next 
month at Fluvanna. 

(4) This minority designated "Brother Asbury " General- 
Assistant for America, and insured his supremacy by enact- 
ing that " On hearing every preacher for and against what 
is in debate, the right of determination shall rest with him 
according to the Minutes " — " that is," adds Stevens, ac- 
cording to the usage of Wesley, as seen in the British Min- 
utes, these being the only Minutes yet extant. The Ameri- 

* Watters' Life, p. 72; Stevens, Hist. M. E. Ch., II. 60, 61. 
I Semi-centennial Sermon; Stevens, II. 60, 61; L. M. Lee's Life of Jesse 
Lee, p. 81. 



IOO 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



can Minutes were not published till 1795." * These powers, 
however, did not seem so unusual to the preachers who sub- 
mitted to them, as to us, since General-Assistant Rankin, 
as well as Wesley, had exercised them. 66 The determina- 
tion of questions in the early Conferences was a prerogative 
of the General-Assistant, qualified, however, by the opinion 
of the majority when this was obvious." f " In imitation of 
the practice of Mr. Wesley, after hearing all that could be 
said -pro and con, the presiding officer decided the point." % 
On the other hand, some considerations may be urged in 
extenuation of what appears to be the hasty action of the 
Delaware Conference. 

( 1 ) The evident drift of opinion among preachers and 
people may have been, and probably was, such as to render 
it certain that the decision of the sacramental controversy at 
the regular session would be in favor of the administration 
of the ordinances. It must not be forgotten, however, that 
this Southern majority afterwards proved singularly tractable 
and self-sacrificing. 

(2) Asbury, though not the General- Assistant, was now 
the only preacher in America who had been sent out under 
a commission from Mr. Wesley: this, added to his com- 
manding personal influence, based on his character, abilities, 
and services, rendered him in some sort the real head of 
American Methodism. 

(3) Wesley's position on the sacramental question was 
well known. The practice of English Methodism had been 
uniform. The " United Societies" had no sacraments; to 
administer them was " to separate from the Church." 
Methodists, in Europe and America, were Episcopalians, 
looking to 4 'the Church" for sacramental provisions. In 
addition to all this, the Americans in their first Annual Con- 
ference, held under the presidency of the now departed 
Rankin, in 1773, had bound themselves by a solemn com- 
pact, which we have elsewhere § ventured to describe as 

*Hist. M. E. Ch., II. 58. \Ibid., II. 13, footnote. 

J Bangs, Hist. M. E. Ch., I. 132. § See the present work, pp. 61-66. 



Discord and Disunion: iyy8-ij8o. 101 



constitutional, that "the authority of Mr. Wesley and that 
Conference" should "extend to the preachers and people 
in America;" that "the doctrine and discipline of the 
Methodists, as contained in the Minutes," should " be the 
sole rule of our conduct;" and " that if any preachers de- 
viate from the Minutes, we can have no fellowship with them 
till they change their conduct." Thus the sacramental 
question was the fundamental test in both England and 
America: while the Methodists declined to administer, they 
were "societies;" when they decided to empower their 
own preachers to dispense the sacraments, they became a 
Church. Asbury doubtless believed that he, more than any 
other man, would be held responsible by Mr. Wesley for 
such a radical revolution in American Methodism : therefore 
to meet an extraordinary emergency he assumed and exer- 
cised extraordinary powers. His "preparatory" Confer- 
ence he esteemed " regular " because its action was in har- 
mony with what had hitherto been uniformly recognized as 
essentially Methodistic: his principles among Methodists 
had been accepted, "ab omnibus, semfer, et ubique." The 
" regular "Conference he had determined in advance to re- 
gard as schismatic, because, in his view, it was not constitu- 
tionally capable of deciding the sacramental question: Mr. 
Wesley must be heard from. Yet, it must be allowed, by the 
impartial historian, that both before and after this time, As- 
bury was not passively submissive to the authority of Wes- 
ley on other points; Rankin, Wesley's deputy, had found 
him persistent if not stubborn; and in 1784, only five years 
later, Asbury determined to protect himself against the su- 
premacy of Wesley, by demanding election to the Episcopal 
office by the Conference, after he had received appointment 
from Wesley. After all it is probable that had Asbury 
agreed with the Southern majority in their conviction that 
the administration of the sacraments was now a necessity, 
or in the expediency and legitimacy of presbyterial ordi- 
nations, he would have found a way to get rid of all consti- 
tutional and Wesleyan difficulties. 



102 



American Methodism to 1784. 



Having thus endeavored to set clearly before the reader, 
impartially and thoroughly, the merits of this controversy 
which threatened what might have proved a fatal schism in 
the infant Methodism of America, we shall be permitted, 
(since in a Constitutional History much space must be as- 
signed to such a question,) to exhibit briefly the opinions of 
others. 

Dr. Neely, after citing from Asbury's Journal an account 
of his endeavors " to prevent a separation among the 
preachers in the South," says: 

He fears the brethren from the South are in danger of separating, and 
he writes certain parties to endeavor to prevent a separation ; and jet these 
Northern preachers, who rally around Mr. Asburj, have practically with- 
drawn from the Southern preachers, and stand in the attitude of separatists. 
If they had all met together, and the Southerners had seceded, then the 
case would have been different; or even if all had met at the place legally 
designated, and the Southerners, having a majority, had carried measures 
to which the Northern preachers were conscientiously opposed, and then 
the Northern minority had withdrawn on principle, the case would have been 
different* 

Bishop McTyeire denominates this Delaware assembly a 
"quasi Conference " and says: 66 The opening breach was, 
at last, closed by the moderation of the sacramental party, 
who compromised on a reference of the whole subject [to 
Mr. Wesley] backed by such official statements of the case 
as had never before been made." f The tone of his judicial 
narrative carries with it sympathy with, and admiration for, 
the independent and yet moderate course of the sacramental 
party; coupled with a qualified recognition of the wisdom 
and conservatism of Asbury's action, which, however, he 
does not fail to see was irregular. Of the sacramentarians 
(if we may so employ the word) he says: 6 ' The ground was 
not yielded without a struggle — not of arguments, for the 
brethren administering the ordinances were satisfied with 
their position — but it was a struggle of entreaties and tears, 
of love and pleas for continued union." Of Asbury's party 
and its victory he writes: 4 'The trained conservatism of 



* Neely, Gov. Conf. in Meth., pp. i33> 134- t Hist - of Meth -> PP- 3i6, 318. 



Discord and Disunion: ijj8-ij8o. 103 



Wesleyan Methodists triumphed, though it bore hard upon 
them [the American Methodists]. They waited till all 
could be united in measures of relief, and until relief could 
come in regular order." * Five years later, at the Christmas 
Conference of 1784, the relief came " in regular order." 

Dr. Leroy M. Lee expresses a very decided judgment of 
the irregularity of the Delaware proceedings: 

The meeting held in Kent county, Delaware, April 28th, 1779, preceding 
the one whose acts we are now reviewing, was not a regular session of the 
Conference of " Preachers in connexion with the Rev. John Wesley," al- 
though it is so styled in the " Printed Minutes." It is true, the circum- 
stances that kept Mr. Asbury from his usual labors in the Church, prevent- 
ed his attendance at the Conference. But this fact neither lessened the au- 
thority of the Virginia Conference, on the one hand, nor augmented the 
power of the meeting at which he was present, in Delaware, on the other. 
And it is due to historical accuracy to state that the Northern meeting was 
convened, in part, for the purpose of preventing the adoption of any meas- 
ures with regard to the Ordinances. . . . And both Messrs. Watters and 
Garrettson, in their journals, refer to the " little Conference," called for the 
" convenience" of the Northern Preachers; all of whom knew the question 
of Ordinances would receive the final decision of the regular Conference, 
then near at hand; and Mr. Watters, who was present at both, was specially 
commissioned to communicate to the Virginia Conference the "sentiments" 
of this meeting, as a kind of protest against the adoption of any measures 
upon the subject. Under these circumstances, the Virginia Conference 
complained that an illegal Conference had been held, to keep as many of 
the Northern Preachers from the session as possible, lest they should join 
with them in adopting the Ordinances."!" 

Dr. Abel Stevens declares, "The Kent session was not 
only an informal one, called after the 4 regular Conference ' 
had been appointed, but was probably unknown to the 
Southern preachers till after its adjournment," and continues 
at length in the same vein : 

Any student of Methodist history must dissent with diffidence from the 
judgment of so high an authority as Dr. Nathan Bangs. That historian 
says that, "Although the Kent Conference was considered as ' a preparatory 
Conference,' yet, if we take into consideration that the one, afterward held 
in Virginia, was held in the absence of the General Assistant, we shall see 
good reason for allowing that this, which was held under the presidency of 
Mr. Asbury, was the regular Conference, and hence their acts and doings 
are to be considered valid." The historical evidence is, however, decisively 



■■■ Hist, of Meth., p. 315. f Life and Times of Rev. Jesse Lee, pp. 81, 82. 



American Methodism to 1784. 



to the contrary. Weslej had superseded Asburj, in the office of "General 
Assistant," by the appointment of Rankin. Rankin had held that office and 
presided in every Annual Conference down to the preceding session. At 
the latter Asbury was not present; he was in retirement at Judge White's 
house; and as he received no appointment, his name is not even mentioned, 
in any way whatever, in the Minutes for the year; Watters presided, and 
the Conference appointed its next session to be held at Fluvanna. The ses- 
sion at Fluvanna was, therefore, as Watters calls it, the " regularly appoint- 
ed Conference." Instead of Asbury being the General Assistant at this 
time, that office had been, as we have noticed, put in commission at the 
Conference of 1777, being vested in a committee of five, Gatch, Dromgoole, 
Glendenning, Ruff, and Watters, in view of the probable return of Rankin 
to England. All these commissioners, except Ruff, were within the territo- 
ry of the Fluvanna Conference; one of them, Gatch, presided at its session, 
and was the champion of its proposed reforms. Asbury was designated to 
the office of General Assistant by the informal Conference in Kent; he had, 
therefore, no previous official authority to call that Conference, nor could 
his new appointment be considered legal till the majority of his brethren, 
who were within the Fluvanna Conference, should confirm it.* 

The reader has now before him about all that has been rele- 
vantly said — perhaps all that can be judiciously said — about 
this " irregular " session. Irregular it certainly was, and it 
was probably Asbury's influence which brought about the in- 
sertion of its proceedings in the Minutes, when these were 
first collected and printed in 1795. Of the three reasons as- 
signed in the answer to Question 12 for electing Asbury 
General-Assistant, the third about his "being joined with 
Messrs. Rankin and Shadford, by express order from Mr. 
Wesley," is historically inaccurate. Shadford was not ap- 
pointed co-General-Assistant; but Rankin was appointed to 
supersede Asbury in the office, and the latter was actually 
ordered to England. During the administration of Rankin, 
Asbury was subordinate to his authority. As President of 
the Conference, he made the appointments, sometimes sadly 
disappointing Asbury. Asbury had never before presided 
in any body that aspired to be recognized as an Annual 
Conference. 

The Seventh regular Conference assembled, according to 
adjournment, at Brokenback Church, Fluvanna Co., Va., 
May 18, 1779. William Watters, the president of the pre- 



* Stevens, Hist. M. E. Church, II. 62, 63. 



Discord and Disunion : 1778—1780. 105 



ceding year, was in attendance: his name, however, is sig- 
nificantly dropped to the bottom of the list of Assistants, and 
it is not probable that he presided. He had attended the 
irregular session in Kent, and at the following meeting of 
the Northern body, his name is placed next to Asbury's in 
the list of Assistants. Philip Gatch was the leading spirit of 
the Conference, and, as he was also a member of the Com- 
mittee of Control, appointed two years before, it is probable 
that he presided. Dr. Stevens says he presided, but gives 
no authority for the statement. The Church owes to him a 
most important rule of administration: the trial of accused 
members by committee, instead of the previous clerical 
right of excommunication. 

The name of Asbury is nowhere mentioned in the Min- 
utes of this " regular " session. There is no name common 
to the two lists of Assistants, six of whom were appointed 
at the Northern Conference, and eleven at the Southern. 
The Baltimore and Frederick Circuits appear in both lists 
of appointments, the same preachers being sent to them by 
each Conference, except that at the regular session Free- 
born Garrettson is substituted for his brother Richard on 
the Frederick work. 

The statistics of all the circuits are given in the regular 
Minutes: with the exception of the name of Watters, this is 
almost the only indication of union between the two Con- 
ferences. There are 8,577 members in society, of whom 
all but 2,987, even when Baltimore and Frederick are 
counted as belonging to the Northern Conference, hold 
their membership in the circuits constituting the Virginia 
Conference. The Minutes give the number of traveling 
preachers as 49; but this result is obviously obtained by 
adding the number of names on the roll of the irregular Con- 
ference (17) to the number on the roll of the regular body 
(32): there were but 44, since five names are common to 
the two rolls. Allowing Baltimore and Frederick to the As- 
bury Conference, it contained seven circuits, while the reg- 
ular body had fourteen. The proceedings of that session 



io6 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



not only represented a majority of the circuits, preachers, 
and people, but were enacted in the legal assembly of the 
Church, and by a legal majority of its recognized legis- 
lators. 

The answer to Ques. 6 marks the change from one year 
of probation for a traveling preacher to two years, before he 
is eligible to admission into full connection: a rule which 
has continued in force to this day. The next answer ex- 
cludes effective men who do not travel from the benefits of 
quarterage in the circuits where they live and probably, also, 
from any claim on the Conference collection. The final an- 
swer regards the preacher who receives a subscription which 
is not reported as quarterage as unfaithful to the brother- 
hood and excluded from the connection. 

Strangely enough, the printed minutes contain no refer- 
ence to the most momentous transaction of the Conference. 
The sacramental controversy received a positive solution 
which no anticipatory action of the irregular Conference 
could prevent. " The Fluvanna Conference," says Ste- 
vens, " being the i regularly appointed ' session of this year, 
had the question therefore legitimately before it — referred 
directly to it by the preceding session." From Philip 
Gatch' s manuscript journal we extract the following series 
of questions and answers: 

Ques. 14. What are our reasons for taking up the administration of the 
ordinances among us? Ans. Because the Episcopal establishment is now 
dissolved, and, therefore, in almost all our circuits the members are without 
the ordinances — we believe it to be our duty. 

^ues. 15. What preachers do approve of this step? Ans. Isham Tatum, 
Charles Hopkins, Nelson Reed, Reuben Ellis, P. Gatch, Thomas Morris, 
James Morris, James Foster, John Major, Andrew Yeargan, Henry Willis, 
Francis Poythress, John Sigman, Leroy Cole, Carter Cole, James O'Kelly, 
William Moore, Samuel Roe. 

J^jies. 16. Is it proper to have a committee? Ans. Yes, and by the vote 
of the preachers. 

Shies. 17. Who are the committee? Ans. P. Gatch, James Foster, L. 
Cole, and R. Ellis. 

®hies. 18. What powers do the preachers vest in the committee? Ans. 
They do agree to observe all the resolutions of the said committee, so far as 
the said committee shall adhere to the Scriptures. 



Discord and Disunion : 1778-1780. 



®>ues. 19. What form of ordination shall be observed, to authorize any 
Preacher to administer? Ans. By that of a Presbytery. 

Qiies. 20. How shall the Presbytery be appointed? Ans. By a majority 
of the Preachers. 

Suites. 21. Who are the Presbytery? Ans. P. Gatch, R. Ellis, James Fos- 
ter, and, in case of necessity, Leroy Cole. 

£hies. 22. What power is vested in the Presbytery by this choice? Ans. 
1. To administer the ordinances themselves. 2. To authorize any other 
Preacher or Preachers, approved of by them, by the form of laying on of 
hands. 

ghies. 23. What is to be observed as touching the administration of the 
ordinances, and to whom shall they be administered? Ans. To those who 
are under our care and discipline. 

Ques. 24. Shall we rebaptize any under our care? Ans. No. 

®>ues. 25. What mode shall be adopted for the administration of baptism? 
Ans. Either sprinkling or plunging, as the parent or adult shall choose. 

Shies. 26. What ceremony shall be used in the administration? Ans. 
Let it be according to our Lord's command, Matt, xxviii. 19: short and ex- 
tempore. 

ghies. 27. Shall the sign of the cross be used? Ans. No. 

ghies. 28. Who shall receive the charge of the child, after baptism, for 
its future instruction? Ans. The parent or persons who have the care of the 
child, with advice from the Preacher. 

ghies. 29. What mode shall be adopted for the administration of the 
Lord's Supper? Ans. Kneeling is thought the most proper; but, in cases 
of conscience, may be left to the choice of the communicant. 

®hies. 30. What ceremony shall be observed in this ordinance? Ans. 
After singing, praying, and exhortation, the Preacher delivers the bread, 
saying, ' The body of our Lord Jesus Christ,' etc., after the Church or- 
der." * 

The governmental situation in American Methodism on 
the adjournment of the Fluvanna Conference may be rep- 
resented in detail as follows : 

(1) The Fluvanna action carefully distinguishes between 
the new Committee of Control and the formally constituted 
Presbytery. To be sure both bodies are composed of the 
same men: the men fit for the one position are naturally 
also those best qualified for the discharge of the duties of 
the other. The Committee business is determined in Ques- 
tions 16, 17, 18; and Gatch's selection at the head of the 
new organ of government lends additional probability to his 



* Dr. L. M. Lee, Life and Times of Jesse Lee, pp. 79-81. 



io8 



A7nerican Methodism td 



presidency of this Conference. The Presbytery matter is 
decided in Questions 19, 20, 21, 22. 

(2) The appointment of a new Committee of Control de- 
liberately ignores the recognition by the Kent Conference 
of Asbury's powers as General-Assistant. Watters doubt- 
less communicated to the regular body what had been 
done, if the " healing epistle " did not also contain the news. 
But they took no notice of the election of Asbury. More- 
over, it is to be remarked that the Kent Conference permit- 
ted itself no appeal from the decisions of the General-As- 
sistant, whereas the Fluvanna brethren expressly reserved to 
themselves the privilege of passing upon the scriptural char- 
acter of the acts of their Committee. 

(3) J esse Lee records that " the committee [presbytery] 
thus chosen first ordained themselves, and then proceeded to 
ordain and set apart other preachers for the same purpose, 
that they might administer the holy ordinances to the 
Church of Christ. The preachers thus ordained went forth 
preaching the gospel in their circuits as formerly, and ad- 
ministered the sacraments wherever they went, provided the 
people were willing to partake with them." * That this ac- 
tion was decent, rational, and scriptural, Methodists of our 
day would have little disposition to deny. The regular and 
legal character of the body that reached this decision has al- 
ready been sufficiently vindicated. There are no reasons 
why "Philip Gatch, John Dickins, Nelson Reed, Reuben 
Ellis, John Major, Henry Willis, Francis Poythress, and 
others as eminent, should be represented, however indi- 
rectly, as they have hitherto been by some of our authori- 
ties, as, practically, revolters from and disturbers of the 
Church. They were in every legal sense the Church 
itself." t 

Yet this action completed, apparently irreparably, the 
breach which the Northern Conference had opened. Not 
only was a different form of government adopted in each 
body, one essentially episcopal and the other as evidently 

*Hist. of Meth., p. 69. f Stevens, Hist. M. E. Ch., II. 66. 



Discord and Disunion : ijj8—i j8o. 109 



presbyterial, but by ordinations and sacraments the South- 
ern Methodists had deliberately erected themselves into a 
Presbyterian Church. From this step it seemed impossi- 
ble to recede. The two Conferences had drifted widely 
apart; and at this stage of the proceeding, it was difficult to 
see how they could come together again. 

(4) The regular Conference had departed from the 
recognized principles of old Methodism. But if they thus 
ceased to be Methodists, in a little more than five years after- 
ward John Wesley, also, ceased to be one. How much 
this action of theirs determined and hastened the measures 
of Wesley for the organization of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church cannot be estimated ; but no doubt it contributed no 
little to this auspicious result. 

The Fluvanna Conference adjourned to hold its next ses- 
sion at Manikintown, Va., May 8, 1780. 

The Two Conferences of ij8o. 

Asbury's Conference of conservatives assembled at Balti- 
timore, in the new Lovely Lane Chapel, Monday, April 24, 
1780. This is the date given in the printed minutes. But the 
preceding Conference had adjourned to ' 6 the last Tuesday 
in April," and Asbury says under date of Tuesday, April 
25, " Our Conference met in peace and love." Probably 
the preachers began arriving on Monday; some informal 
conversations were held that day; and on Tuesday the Con- 
ference began its session, with Asbury in the Chair. On 
the 24th Asbury prepared his list of appointments.* 

Since the last session Asbury's Conference of conserva- 
tive or constitutional irregulars had been gaining some 
ground. The action taken at the regular Conference in 
Virginia had been supported by a large majority, but was 
not unanimous. Some of the older lay members, perhaps a 
considerable number, trained in the traditions of Methodism, 
were doubtful about receiving the ordinances from other 
than episcopally-ordained men, especially without Mr. Wes- 
*Journal, I. 280, 281. 



no 



American Methodism to 1784. 



ley's consent. The few preachers who could not approve 
the action of the Virginia Conference transferred their mem- 
bership and labors to the Northern body. 

The first question propounded is this, "What preachers 
do now agree to sit in Conference on the original plan as 
Methodists?" The names of twenty-four preachers are ap- 
pended. This is an increase of eight over the number that 
had signed Question 6 in the last Conference ; but several of 
these were now admitted on trial and none of the eighteen 
progressives who approved the administration of the sacra- 
ments — like Tatum, Reed, Ellis, Gatch, Willis, Poythress, 
Cole, and O'Kelly — are included. John Tunnell is per- 
haps the most influential man that had come over. The 
Southern Conference is still strong in leaders and numbers ; 
but the Northerners have gained a signal advantage in the 
phraseology of this first question, which plants them squarely 
on the "original plan" — the constitutional enactments of 
1773. Here was Asbury' s strength, and he knew it. He 
alone of all the preachers now itinerating in America had 
been sent out by Wesley; he alone had been commissioned 
as Assistant for America: his Conference now stood on the 
Wesleyan platform. Irregular he was, but in defense of 
Wesleyanism and the fundamental compact of the Ameri- 
cans adopted at Rankin's first Annual Conference. 

The list of appointments shows ten circuits, including Bal- 
timore and Frederick, and twenty two preachers assigned 
to work. Asbury, as recognized General-Assistant, did not 
take an appointment. Of the twenty two appointees sev- 
eral were young men, however, just admitted on trial, so 
that as regards the older and more influential men the rel- 
ative strength of the parties to the controversy is but little 
changed. 

Asbury speaks in his Journal more than once, during the 
period just preceding the assembling of this Conference, of 
"preparing papers" for the body. The statesmanship of 
the natural leader is asserting itself in deliberate mastery of 
the emergencies of the times and the peculiarities of his sit- 



Discord and Disunion: iyj8—iy8o. 



in 



nation. He is consolidating his preachers and people by 
the imposition of new and timely rules and regulations. No 
one could foresee how long the struggle w r ith the Southern 
Conference might be protracted: like a wise general Asbury 
prepared for the shock and strain of sharp and continuous 
conflict by unifying and strengthening his own forces and 
binding them more closely to their commander. This policy 
is outlined in a series of twenty questions and answers, almost 
all of which bear visibly the marks of having been proposed 
from the Chair, with whom 6t the right of determination" 
rested. More legislation is now enacted than had hereto- 
fore, so far as the Minutes show, been considered in any 
annual assembly: even if the recalcitrant Virginians should 
return, it was desirable that they should find the government 
solid, and shaped to the General- Assistant's hand. While 
Asbury was a local preacher, they had strayed from the old 
paths of Methodism. But even in that lowly capacity he 
had proved himself too much for. them. If, on returning to 
the constitutional fold, they find him securely seated in the 
General-Assistant's Chair, their commission of superintend- 
eney as well as their presbytery, will dissolve into thin air, 
and the man who is authorized to exercise all the powers 
that ever belonged to Thomas Rankin, or to Wesley himself 
in the British Conference, will see that the progressive 
Southerners do not again slip their halters. 

The most of these twenty questions and answers, as incor- 
porating several principles and measures which have re- 
mained permanently operative in American Methodism, as 
well as the Asburyan ultimatum to the regular Conference, 
are here cited: 

Qiies. 7. Ought not all the Assistants to see to the settling of all the preach- 
ing houses by trustees, and order the said trustees to meet once in half a 
year, and keep a register of their proceedings; if there are any vacancies 
choose new trustees for the better security of the houses, and let all the 
deeds be drawn in substance after that in the printed Minutes? Ans. Yes. 

$hies. 8. Shall all the traveling preachers take a license from every Con- 
ference, importing that they are Assistants or helpers in connection with 
us? Ans. Yes. 



112 



American Methodism to 1784. 



®hies. 9. Shall Brother Asbury sign them in behalf of the Conference? 
Ans. Yes. 

®>ues. 10. Ought it to be strictly enjoined on all our local preachers and 
exhorters, that no one presume to speak in public without taking a vote 
every quarter (if required) and be examined by the Assistant with respect 
to his life, his qualification, and reception? Ans. Yes. 

®)ues. 12. Shall we continue in close connection with the Church, and 
press our people to a closer communion with her? Ans. Yes. 

®Htes. 13. Will this Conference grant the privilege to all the friendly 
clergy of the Church of England, at the request or desire of the people, to 
preach or administer the ordinances in our preaching houses or chapels? 
Ans. Yes. 

Ques. 16. Ought not this Conference to require those traveling preachers 
who hold slaves to give promises to set them free? Ans. Yes. 

£>ues. 17. Does this Conference acknowledge that slavery is contrary to 
the laws of God, man, and nature, and hurtful to society; contrary to the 
dictates of conscience and pure religion, and doing that which we would 
not others should do to us and ours? Do we pass our disapprobation on all 
our friends who keep slaves, and advise their freedom? Ans. Yes. 

ghies. 20. Does this whole Conference disapprove the step our brethren 
have taken in Virginia? Ans. Yes. 

®hies. 21. Do we look upon them no longer as Methodists in connection 
with Mr. Wesley and us till they come back? Ans. Agreed. 

Ques. 22. Shall brother Asbury, Garrettson, and Watters attend the 
Virginia Conference, and inform them of our proceedings in this, and receive 
their answer? Ans. Yes. 

Ques. 23. Do we disapprove of the practice of distilling grain into liquor? 
Shall we disown our friends who will not renounce the practice? Ans. Yes. 

£)ues. 24. What shall the Conference do in case of brother Asbury's 
death or absence? Ans. Meet once a year, and act according to the Minutes. 

£j)iies. 25. Ought not the Assistant to meet the colored people himself, 
and appoint as helpers in his absence proper white persons, and not suffer 
them to stay late, and meet by themselves? Ans. Yes. 

®>ues. 26. What must be the conditions of our union with our Virginia 
brethren? Ans. To suspend all their administrations for one year, and all 
meet together in Baltimore. 

Questions 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, and 26 constitute the ulti- 
matum to the Virginians. Reserving these for more minute 
consideration, let us first notice the purport and bearing of 
some of the remaining enactments. 

(1) "Minutes" are mentioned in two answers — those to 
Questions 7 and 24. The American as well as the English 
Minutes are doubtless included in the latter case. But in 
the former, "printed Minutes" are exclusively referred to. 



Discord and Disunion : 1778-1780. 113 

These could only be the English Minutes, since all authori- 
ties from Jesse Lee, the original, contemporary historian, 
down, agree that the American Minutes were never printed 
before 1795- This answer is important as being the earliest 
recognition, in the official transactions of the American 
Conferences, of the doctrinal standards of Methodism. The 
American chapels and meeting-houses had been generally 
settled according to the form of the deed used in England 
since 1750: but now the Conference specially enjoins on all 
the Assistants that ( 1 ) trustees shall everywhere be appoint- 
ed; that (2) they shall meet semi-annually, and (3) keep a 
record of their proceedings; that (4) all vacancies on these 
boards shall be promptly filled; and that (5) 44 all the deeds 
shall be drawn in substance after that in the printed \i. e. 
English] Minutes." But that deed provided that the trus- 
tees should hold the property for the sole use of such per- 
sons as might be appointed at the yearly Conference of the 
people called Methodists, provided the said persons preached 
no other doctrines than those contained in Wesley's Notes 
on the New Testament and in his four volumes of sermons.* 
This question is of far-reaching importance, and will come 
up again. Only in recent times by those who have permit- 
ted the history to drop out of their memories, has the ques- 
tion been raised as to the scope and intention of that part of 
the first Restrictive Rule which forbids the General Con- 
ference to "establish any new standards or rule of doctrine 
contrary to our present existing and established standards of 
doctrine." For American Methodism the progress of our 
history will clearly establish that these standards of doctrine 
are (1) the Twenty-five Articles, (2) Wesley's Notes on 
the New Testament, and (3) his four volumes of Sermons, 
the limits of which will be more particularly fixed hereafter. 
From this Conference of 1780 to the General Conference of 
1808, which adopted the Restrictive Rule, the testimony is 
uniform and convincing. 

Nor is this question purely theoretical and doctrinal in its 



8 



*Tyerman, II. 478 and III. 417. 



ii 4 



American Methodism to 1J84.. 



bearing. As long as two Conferences existed in America, 
each claiming " connexion with Mr. Wesley," and each ex- 
ercising an independent and supreme jurisdiction, it is evi- 
dent that questions of titles to Church property were more 
than likely to arise. Asbury, a prudent man, foresaw the 
evil and hid himself. This minute direction concerning; 
trustees and the form of deeds would secure to the Northern 
Conference all the property they were then holding and 
using: if the Southerners persisted in their independent 
course, and an issue were raised for settlement in the courts, 
it might be in evidence that they had so far departed from 
the "original plan" of Wesleyan Methodism as to forfeit 
their title to the property they were holding. All this As- 
bury had carefully thought out, and he had this minute 
ready for adoption by the Conference. In his subsequent 
administration, he, no doubt, carefully looked to its enforce- 
ment. 

(2) Questions 9 and 10 were further designed, it is evi- 
dent, to furnish an easy touchstone by which the Asburyan 
preachers might be instantly identified and distinguished 
from the traveling preachers of the Southern Conference. 
Moreover, since this license under Asbury's hand was sub- 
ject to annual renewal by the Conference, it enabled the 
General- Assistant to keep all his forces well in hand : when 
a brother became weak on the sacramental question, or took 
work under the other Conference, his license could be suf- 
fered to lapse, and that would be the end of the matter. 
After the schism was healed, this continued a most whole- 
some and useful provision. Question 10 was also intended 
to put the local preachers and exhorters into more closely 
fitting harness, with the reins in a traveling preacher's hand. 

(3) Questions 16 and 17 mark the introduction of anti- 
slavery legislation into American Methodism. "Metho- 
dism thus early recorded its protest against negro slavery, 
anticipating its abolition in Massachusetts by three years, in 
Rhode Island and Connecticut by four years, the thesis of 
Clarkson, before the University of Cambridge, by five years; 



Discord and Disunion : ijj8-ij8o. 115 

and the ordinance of Congress against it, in the Northwest- 
ern Territory, by seven years." * 

(4) Question 23 is sufficient evidence that Methodism 
was not only an anti-slavery, but also a temperance society, 
from the beginning. 

(5) Question 24 is conclusive proof that Asbury was not 
actuated by personal motives or ambitions in forming and 
continuing the Northern Conference. He did not intend 
that its existence should hinge on the accident of his pres- 
ence or absence, his life or death. He regarded it as the 
bulwark of Wesleyanism in America and the exponent of 
original Methodism. Therefore he provided that, in the 
event of his absence or death, the body should not be ab- 
sorbed in the Virginia Conference, which, from his stand- 
point, was made up of separatists, 4 4 no longer to be looked 
upon as Methodists in connection with Mr. Wesley and us." 
Therefore, if brother Asbury should die, the Northern Con- 
ference must 44 meet once a year and act according to the 
Minutes" — doubtless both English and American, includ- 
ing the Minutes of this present momentous session. 

(6) Question 25 amply attests that from the beginning to, 
spread the gospel among the slaves was accepted as part of 
the Heaven-appointed mission of Methodism. The Assist- 
ant was to meet the people of color himself, and in no case 
to leave them under improper or incapable 44 helpers" of 
their own race. 44 This probably gave the preachers an op- 
portunity," remarks Neely, 4 4 to preach to the slaves without 
exciting the suspicion of their owners, who even at that day 
did not know what schemes might be resorted to by the 
slaves for the purpose of gaining their freedom." f 

Asbury' s Journal reveals the fact that the ultimatum, 
which in effect excommunicated the Southern Conference 
44 till they come back," was not reached until after a pro- 
tracted debate on a plan, or conditions, of union proposed by 
himself. Tuesday, April 25, he says: 

We settled all our Northern stations; then we began in much debate 



-Stevens, Hist. M. E. Ch., II. 78. \ Gov. Conf. in Meth., pp. 158, 159. 



n6 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



about the letter sent from Virginia. We first concluded to renounce them. 
Then I offered conditions of union: 

I. That they should ordain no more. 

II. That they should come no further than Hanover Circuit. 

III. That we would have our delegates in their Conference. 

IV. That they should not presume to administer the ordinances where 
there is a decent Episcopal minister. 

V. To have a Union Conference. 

These would not do, as we found upon long debate, and we came back 
to our determinations; although it was like death to think of parting. At 
last a thought struck my mind, to propose a suspension of the ordinances 
for one year, and so cancel all our grievances and be one. It was agreed 
on both sides; and Philip Gatch and Reuben Ellis, that had been very stiff y 
came into it, and thought it would do.* 

As we have already gathered from the Minutes (Ques. 
22) Asbury, Garrettson, and Watters were the Committee 
appointed to attend the Virginia Conference. Asbury's 
plan of union, it is seen, was a little awkward and complex, 
as he doubtless saw after the sifting of Conference de- 
bate. It involved (1) the recognition of existing ordina- 
tions, but the cessation of the practice for the future; (2) a 
boundary line between the Northern and Southern jurisdic- 
tions; (3) Asburyan delegates in the Virginia Conference; 
(4) the ordained Methodists to refrain from administering 
the sacraments, where there was a " decent Episcopal min- 
ister; " and (5) a Union Conference, in which it was in- 
tended, no doubt, that a final and faithful effort should be 
made to adjust all differences. This plan was abandoned, 
however, and that embodied in the Minutes substituted. 

The regular Conference at Fluvanna had adjourned to 
meet at Manakintown, Powhattan County, Va., May 8, 
1780.1 No separate Minutes of this session are known to 
exist: the official printed Minutes of the denomination sim- 
ply incorporate the returns of numbers in society with the 
similar statistics in the Baltimore Conference, and by insert- 
ing, " Question 27. How are the preachers stationed in 
Virginia?" in the proceedings of the Asburyan body, in- 

*Journal, I. 281. 

•j-Mr. Justice McLean's Life of Gatch, p. 75; Garrettson's Semi-centen- 
nial Sermon. 



Discord and Disunion: ijj8—ij8o. 



117 



elude the Southern appointments in the Northern minutes. 
The Southerners have ten circuits, and to them twenty 
preachers are appointed, mostly men of experience and 
weight, like Dickins, Poythress, O'Kelly, Reed, Willis, 
Cole, and others. Stevens regards the omission or suppres- 
sion of the Manakintown Minutes as " a grave defect in the 
official records of the denomination." * He continues: 

The Fluvanna session being, as has been shown, the " regularly appoint- 
ed " Conference, legitimately adjourned from the preceding year, under 
the authoritatively appointed commissioners of superintendency, presided 
over by one of those commissioners, and comprising a majority of the cir- 
cuits, preachers, and people, was unquestionably the legal or rightful ses- 
sion of the body. The legitimate session for the next year must therefore 
be that to which the Fluvanna session adjourned. . . . This statement 
of the facts of the case is, I repeat, due to the integrity of history and to the 
memory of the Fluvanna brethren, who, as has been seen, were no schism 
or faction, but really, at the time of their session, the Church, represented 
in its legitimate Conference. Their measures were equally legitimate; they 
were conducted with dignity and solemnity ; and they were at last effectuat- 
ed, to the signal advantage of American Methodism. \ 

Though the essential injustice, involved in the omission or 
suppression of the Minutes of the regular session of 1780 
(the eighth regular session of the American Conference) 
must be allowed, it can be satisfactorily shown from other 
sources, that nothing material has been lost. Asbury was 
present at the beginning of the Conference, and almost 
certainly to its close. The sacramental controversy, and 
union with the Northern Conference, were the topics im- 
mediately introduced, and it is certain that we have the sub- 
stance of the conclusions reached. Moreover, it can be 
shown that it is not at all improbable that, after conditions 
of union were agreed upon, Asbury himself made the 
Southern appointments ; and, as this was the only other im- 
portant business transacted, he probably at the time inserted 
these appointments in the Northern Minutes, or, at least, 
did so when the Minutes were first printed in 1795. He 
may have thought it wise to suppress the evidences of dis- 
union, and, however we may regret his action from the 



* Hist. M. E. Ch., II. 66, 73. -\ Ibid., II. 73-76. 



n8 



American Methodism to 1784. 



standpoint of official punctilio, we may not impeach his mo- 
tives. Asbury, Watters, and Garrettson, the three commis- 
sioners, have all left full and interesting accounts of their 
embassy. Let us attentively consider then the extant, con- 
temporary sources of information, and the foregoing conclu- 
sions will be forced upon us. And first Asbury's Journal: 

Monday, May 1, 1780. I am going to Virginia. 

Thursday 4. Prepared some papers for Virginia Conference.— I go with 
a heavy heart; and fear the violence of a party of positive men! 

Friday 5. Set out in company with brother Garrettson. . . . We 
found that the plague was begun; the good man Arnold was warm for the 
ordinances. 

Sunday 7. On entering into Virginia, I have prepared some papers for 
the Conference, and expect trouble, but grace is almighty. 

Monday 8. These people are full of the ordinances. We talked and 
prayed with them, then rode on to the Manakintown ferry, much fatigued 
with the ride; went to friend Smith's, where all the preachers were met. I 
conducted myself with cheerful freedom, but found there was a separation 
in heart and practice. I spoke with my countryman, John Dickins, and 
found him opposed to our continuance in union with the Episcopal Church. 
Brothers Watters and Garrettson tried their men, and found them inflex- 
ible. 

Tuesday 9. The Conference was called: Brother Watters, Garrettson, 
and myself stood back; and being afterward joined by Brother Dromgoole, 
we were desired to come in, and I was permitted to speak. — I read Wesley's 
thoughts against a separation ; showed my private letters of instruction 
from Mr. Wesley ; set before them the sentiments of the Delaware and 
Baltimore Conferences; read our epistles, and read my letter to Broth- 
er Gatch, and Dickins's letter in answer. After some time spent in 
this way, it was proposed to me, if I would get the circuits supplied, they 
would desist; but that I could not do. We went to preaching; I spoke on 
Ruth ii. 4, and spoke as though nothing had been the matter among the 
preachers or people ; and we were greatly pleased and comforted ; there was 
some moving among the people. In the afternoon we met. The preach- 
ers appeared to me to be farther off; there had been, I thought, some talk- 
ing out of doors. When we — Asbury, Garrettson, Watters, and Drom- 
goole — could not come to a conclusion with them, we withdrew, and left 
them to delibei-ate on the conditions I offered, which was to suspend the 
measures they had taken for one year. After an hour's conference, we 
were called to receive their answer, which was that they could not submit 
to the terms of union. I then prepared to leave the house to go to a near 
neighbor's to lodge, under the heaviest cloud I ever felt in America. O 
what I felt! Nor I alone, but the agents on both sides! They wept like 
children, but kept their opinions. 

Wednesday 10. I returned to take leave of the Conference, and to go 



Discord and Disunion : ijj8-iy8o. 



119 



off immediately to the North; but found they had been brought to an agree- 
ment while I was praying, as with a broken heart, in the house we went to 
lodge at; and Brothers Watters and Garrettson had been praying upstairs, 
where the Conference sat. We heard what they had to say — surely the 
hand of God has been greatly seen in all this. There might have been 
twenty promising preachers and three thousand people seriously affected 
by this separation, but the Lord would not suffer this. We then had preach- 
ing by Brother W T atters on " Come thou with us, and we will do thee good " 
— afterward we had a love-feast; preachers and people wept, prayed, and 
talked, so that the spirit of dissension was powerfully weakened, and I 
hoped it would never take place again.* 

Thus we see that Asbury was present three days — the 
usual term of a Conference session at that time — and that 
almost the whole time was taken up with interviews with 
him and his colleagues, and the exciting discussions that re- 
sulted therefrom. It was proposed to desist from the admin- 
istration of the ordinances, if Asbury could get Episcopal 
ministers to supply the circuits with sacraments, but this he 
could not do. 

William Watters, who was also one of the commissioners of 
union, and was, therefore, a participator in, and -eye and ear 
witness of, these proceedings, has left us a detailed account 
of his mission, its progress and results. He says: 

We found our brethren as loving and sfs full of zeal as ever, and as de- 
termined on persevering in their newly adopted mode ; for to all their for- 
mer arguments they now added (what with many was infinitely stronger 
than all other arguments in the world) that the Lord approbated and great- 
ly blessed his own ordinances, by them administered the past year. We 
had a great deal of loving conversation, with many tears; but I saw no bit- 
terness, no shyness, no judging each other. We wept and prayed and 
sobbed, but neither would agree to the other's terms. In the meantime, I 
was requested to preach at twelve o'clock. As I had many preachers and 
professors to hear me, I spoke from the words of Moses to his father-in-law: 
" We are journeying unto the place of which the Lord said, I will give it to 
you; come thou with us, and we will do thee good; for the Lord hath spo- 
ken good concerning Israel." After waiting two days, and all hopes of an ac- 
commodation failing, we had fixed on starting back early in the morning; 
but late hi the evening it was proposed by one of their own party in Con ference 
{none of the others being presetit) that there should be a suspension of the ordi- 
nances for the present year, and that our circumstances should be laid before Mr. 
Wesley, and his advice solicited; also that Mr. Asbury shoidd be requested to ride 
through the different circuits , and superintend the -work at large. The proposal, in 



< : - Asbury 's Journal, I. 282, 2S3. 



120 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



a few minutes, took with all but a few. In the morning, instead of coming off in 
despair, we xvere invited to take our seats again in the Conference, where, with 
great rejoicings and praises to God, we, on both sides, heartily agreed to the ac- 
commodation .* 

The Baltimore terms were accepted and, most wonderful 
of all, forcing us to recognize the overwhelming personal 
influence of the man, Mr. Asbury was " requested to ride 
through the different circuits, and superintend the work 
at large." This proposal instantly took with nearly the 
entire Conference, and, in the morning, the Northern com- 
missioners took their seats in the Conference, and both sides 
"heartily agreed to the accommodation." Since Mr. As- 
bury' s powers as General-Assistant were thus cordially and 
generally recognized before the adjournment of the session, 
we repeat that, as the Committee of Control in the South 
was practically abolished by this arrangement, it is by no 
means improbable that Asbury himself arranged the ap- 
pointments and afterwards inserted them in the minutes of 
the Baltimore Conference. 

Garrettson's accounts, both in his Autobiography and in 
his Semi-centennial Sermon, add nothing to the particulars 
already before us except that " a letter, containing a circum- 
stantial account of the case, written by John Dickins, was 
signed and sent to Mr. Wesley." As Dickins corresponded 
with Wesley on behalf of the Conference, so Asbury rested 
Friday, May 12, "to write to Mr. Wesley," and on Satur- 
day, Sept. 16, he says he " wrote to Mr. Wesley, at the de- 
sire of the Virginia Conference, who had consented to sus- 
pend the administration of the ordinances for one year." f 
Thus the case was appealed by consent of both parties to 
the Methodist patriarch in England, while the General- As- 
sistant in America is again exercising undisputed superin- 
tendence over the whole work. 



*Life of Waiters, p. 79. f Asbury's Journal, I. 284, 309. 



CHAPTER VIII. 



Peace and Prosperity: i 781-1784. 



/. The Conference of 1781. 

THIS Conference, at which were finally consummated the 
proposals and measures for reunion so auspiciously be- 
gun in 1780, marks the beginning of a new era of peace and 
prosperity. United American Methodism, under the single 
leadership of Asbury, presents an unbroken front, and, as 
the revolutionary war draws to a close, enters, under fa- 
vorable conditions of civil and religious peace, upon an ag- 
gressive career of almost uninterrupted prosperity and con- 
quest. 

A 44 preparatory " and a "regular" session was held, of 
which more will be said: of the regular session Asbury 
wrote: "Tuesday [April] 24. Our Conference began in 
Baltimore, where several of the preachers attended from 
Virginia and North Carolina. — All but one agreed to return 
to the old plan, and give up the administration of the ordi- 
nances: our troubles now seem over from that quarter; and 
there seems to be a considerable change in the preachers 
from North to South : all was conducted in peace and 
love." * Watters, the peacemaker, gratefully records that 
he 44 was not a little comforted in finding all so united in the 
bonds of the peaceable gospel of Jesus Christ. We rejoiced 
together," he adds, "that the Lord had broken the snare 
of the devil, and our disputes were all at an end." The 
Minutes show an increase of more than two thousand mem- 
bers as the result of the peaceful and harmonious labors of 
the year, reporting as they do, 10,539 ^ n Society, distributed 
in twenty-five circuits, and served by fifty-five preachers, 



* Asbury's Journal, I. 328. 

(121) 



122 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



including General-Assistant Asbury, whose labors and trav- 
els are now so extensive that, according to established cus- 
tom, he takes no appointment. Well might Jesse Lee de- 
clare, " the Lord had wonderfully favored the traveling 
preachers, so that we spread our borders, and our numbers 
increased abundantly." "Of the more than 10,500 Metho- 
dists now reported in the country, there were but 873 
north of the southern boundary of Pennsylvania; 9,666 
were below it." * 

This year there appears for the first time a unique head- 
ing of the official minutes which continues in the same form 
until it is succeeded by the announcement of minutes taken 
at 64 the several Annual Conferences of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church." This heading speaks of the Conference as 
" held at Choptank, State of Delaware, April 16, 1781, and 
adjourned to Baltimore the 24th of said month." Here we 
discover the germ of the modern American Annual Confer- 
ence. In England, with compact territory and dense popu- 
lation, it has never been found necessary to divide the work 
by the organization of these subordinate bodies; the Irish 
Conference, in its relation to the British, as the Americans 
cited in justification of their action, is found to be the best 
precedent and analogy for the American plan, now begun 
on a small scale, but afterwards to become the only adequate 
solution of ecclesiastical government for the millions of 
members and for the immense territorial expansion, of the 
Methodist Episcopal Churches, hitherto unparalleled among 
Protestant communions. To be sure two Conferences had 
been held in each of the preceding years. But only one of 
the bodies meeting in 1779 and 1780 was "regular": the 
other must be set down as extraordinary in its call and ses- 
sion. Nevertheless, experience had shown the plan to be 
possessed of obvious advantages, especially for the conven- 
ient attendance of preachers, who were now widely scat- 
tered upon circuits, some of which were very remote from 
any single center at which the Conference could convene. 
* Stevens, Hist. M. E. Ch., II. 92. 



Peace and Prosperity : 1781-1784.. 



123 



The statement in the minutes of 1779 that the Delaware 
Conference was held " for the convenience of the preachers 
in the Northern stations" and "as preparatory to the Con- 
ference in Virginia," while it did not assign all the reasons 
which brought about that gathering, was by no means de- 
void of foundation in fact. Consequently, after the reunion 
of 1780 had rendered unnecessary the existence of two Con- 
ferences on the basis of doctrinal or governmental differ- 
ences, the conveniences arising from this arrangement dur- 
ing the two years of estrangement, had so commended them- 
selves to Asbury's judgment, and doubtless also to that of 
the body of preachers, that in 1781, when harmony and 
unity were restored, the General-Assistant thought it expe- 
dient to appoint two Conferences. Such were the small be- 
ginnings from which have sprung the one hundred and sev- 
enty-five Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. The 
minutes contain a formal statement and justification of this 
new departure. 

"On the twenty-fourth day of April," says Jesse Lee in 
his History, "the Ninth Conference met in Baltimore. But 
previous to this a few preachers on the Eastern Shore held 
a little Conference in Delaware State, near Choptank, to 
make some arrangements for those preachers who could not 
go with them, and then adjourned (as they called it) to Bal- 
timore; so, upon the whole, it was considered but one Con- 
ference." Thus these "preparatory" Conferences, owing 
to their irregular origin in 1779 and 1780, were still, in some 
quarters, regarded with suspicion; but "upon the whole" 
everybody soon fell in with the new plan. 

To this day, according to the language of the Discipline, 
a preacher is "admitted on trial," not into a particular An- 
nual Conference, but " into the traveling connection." The 
Annual Conferences arose and continue to arise from subdi- 
visions of the Church, its territory, and its one body of min- 
isters, who form what is technically called the "traveling 
connexion." The Church did not arise from the amalga- 



124 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



mation of Annual Conferences. The Annual Conference 
is thus a unit of administration, created first by the Superin- 
tendents for their convenience and that of the preachers, 
and later by the authority of the General Conference. This 
unit of administration is territorial, for, within its prescribed 
boundaries, every Annual Conference, great or small, exer- 
cises precisely the same powers, under the same rules and 
regulations. In the beginning, however, before the organi- 
zation of the Quadrennial General Conference in 1792, since 
legislative powers were exercised by the whole body of the 
ministry, with the approval of the General- Assistant or Su- 
perintendent, these local Conferences were considered sim- 
ply as adjourned meetings of the undivided ministry. Such 
is the plain implication of the heading of the Minutes, which 
continued till the organization of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. 

At this Ninth Annual Conference of 1781, the first ques- 
tion was intended to cement indissolubly the union of 1780: 

What preachers are now determined, after mature consideration, close 
observation, and earnest prayer, to preach the old Methodist doctrine, and 
strictly enforce the discipline as contained in the Notes, Sermons, and 
Minutes published by Mr. Wesley so far as they respect both preachers and 
people, according to the knowledge we have of them, and the ability God 
shall give, and are firmly resolved to discountenance a separation among 
either preachers or people? 

The answer embraces the names of thirty-nine preachers, 
beginning with Francis Asbury, and including Lee Roy 
Cole, Reuben Ellis, Francis Poythress, Nelson Reed, Rich- 
ard Ivy, and Henry Willis, who had been leaders of the 
Southern sacramental party. Gatch had previously ceased 
to travel, and the last question asked at this Conference of 
1 78 1, 44 Who desist from traveling this year?" includes in 
its answer the names of John Dickins and Isham Tatum, 
who had likewise been conspicuous and able leaders of the 
sacramentarians, and of William Moore and Greenberry 
Green, who had been identified with the Southern Confer- 
ence. Cole, Willis, Ivy, Ellis, Reed, and Poythress are all 
appointed Assistants. Asbury thus wisely recognized the 



Peace and Prosperity: ij8i-ij8/}.. 



gifts of the Southern leaders and accorded them this ex- 
pression of his esteem and confidence. O 'Kelly was not 
present at the Conference: his name does not appear 
among those appended to Question i, nor does he receive 
an appointment. Is he the preacher intended by Asbury, 
when he declares, as already noticed, that 4 4 All but one 
agreed to return to the old plan? " 

Freeborn Garrettson is our sole and yet sufficient authori- 
ty for the statement that at or before this Conference, a re- 
ply had been received from Mr. Wesley in answer to the let- 
ters written by Dickins and Asbury. 44 We met," he says, 
44 and received Mr. Wesley's answer, which was that we 
should continue on the old plan until further direction. 
We unanimously agreed to follow his counsel and went on 
harmoniously." * 

At the Conference of 1780 we have seen the order given 
to the Assistants, 44 let all the deeds be drawn in substance 
after that in the printed minutes." We know that the deed 
contained in these English or printed minutes named Wes- 
ley's four volumes of Sermons and his Notes on the New 
Testament as doctrinal standards of Methodism. At the 
Conference of 1781, in this answer to the first question, 
which was designed to heal existing dissensions and become 
once more an enduring bond of union, these doctrinal stand- 
ards are explicitly mentioned. The 44 old " plan, the " old " 
Methodist doctrine, the 44 old" Methodist discipline — on 
these original foundations alone would Asbury and his Con- 
ference consent to build the temple of American Methodism, 
one and undivided. Of the fact, the historian cannot fail to 
take notice : our discussion of what it involved is once more 
postponed to a later date. 

It is not necessary that we should take further notice of 
what have since become the ordinary disciplinary or minute 
questions under which the regular business of Annual Con- 
ferences is transacted. The questions and answers which 
embrace the legislation of this Conference, the rules and 



* Semi-centennial Sermon. 



126 



American Methodism to 



regulations imposed on preachers and people, need not de- 
tain us, except the explicit recognition of two years as the 
legal period of ministerial probation. 

S^ues. 4. Should we take the preachers into full connection after one 
year's trial? Or, would it not be better, after considering how young they 
are in age, grace, and gifts, to try them two years; unless it be one of 
double testimony, of whom there is general approbation? Ans. Yes.* 

At the Fluvanna, or regular, Conference of 1779, the pe- 
riod of probation for admission into full connection had 
been extended to two years; but as Asbury and the north- 
ern brethren were not present, the Conference of 1781 for- 
mally enacted the two years' term, which has continued to 
this day. A necessity also arose for directing preachers in 
charge not to undo the action of their predecessors with 
regard to preaching places, without inquiring as to its 
grounds. Very wholesome legislation against the read- 
mission of expelled members without evidence of repent- 
ance may be profitably considered in our own day. 
Courses of study had not yet been appointed for traveling 
preachers, but their germ may be discovered in the answer 
to Question 8, which directed the preachers to read the 
" Rules, " the " Character of a Methodist," and the i( Plain 
Account of Christian Perfection." The practical and ex- 
perimental character of this reading recommended by the 
Conference is significant. Commenting upon a correspond- 
ence which Wesley had in 1746 with Dr. Philip Doddridge, 
who was then at the head of a Dissenting Seminary, asking 
for suggestions of books to be studied by his preachers, Mr. 
Tyerman observes: 

Of necessity, then, preaching was solely on the fundamental points of 
experimental and practical religion; and hence, their unequaled success in 
awakening and converting sinners. . . . The effect of this unadorned 
preaching of the greatest of all virtues was surprising. Under these un- 
tutored discourses, people found themselves emerging out of thick darkness 
into light, which St. Peter aptly describes as '■marvelous? These were glo- 
rious results, and almost make one wish, that among the cultivated and cap- 
tivating preachers of the present day, who can discourse most eloquently 



* Minutes, ed. of 1813, p. 28. 



Peace and Prosperity : 1781-1784. 



127 



upon any subject, from Eve's fig leaves up to Aaron's wardrobe, or from the 
architecture of Noah's ark down to the whale that swallowed Jonah, there 
were a sprinkling of men whose preaching powers, like those of Wesley's 
first helpers, were confined to an incessant utterance, in burning if some- 
what boorish words, of the glorious old truths now-a-days too much neg- 
lected."* 

77. The Conference of 1782. 

The Tenth Annual Conference was "held at Ellis's 
Preaching-house in Sussex county, Virginia, [Wednesday] 
April 17, 1782, and adjourned to Baltimore, [Monday] May 
21." t Of the legislative relations of the two sessions Jesse 
Lee remarks: 

As the Conference in the North was of the longest standing, and withal 
composed of the oldest preachers, it was allowed greater privileges than 
that in the South, especially in making rules and forming regulations for 
the societies. Accordingly, when anything was agreed to in the Virginia 
Conference, and afterwards disapproved of in the Baltimore Conference, it 
was dropped. But if any rule was fixed and determined on at the Balti- 
more Conference, the preachers in the South were under the necessity of 
abiding by it. J 

After the Conferences became more numerous, however, 
the legislative power was recognized as common to them all, 
and general approval in all the sessions of a year was neces- 
sary for the passage of a given measure. 

Asbury's Journal contains the following interesting no- 
tices of the session of the Virginia Conference at Ellis's: 

Tuesday [April] 16. We set out; and on the next day, (17th) reached 
Ellis's, at whose house we held the conference. The people 1 flocked to- 
gether for preaching: Mr. Jarratt gave us a profitable discourse on the 14th 
chapter of Hosea. In the evening the preachers met in conference: as 
there had been much distress felt by those of them of Virginia, relative to 
the administration of the ordinances, I proposed to such as were so dis- 
posed, to enter into a written agreement to cleave to the old plan in which 
we had been so greatly blessed, that we might have the greater confidence 
in each other, and know on whom to depend: this instrument was signed 
by the greater part of the preachers without hesitation. . . . With the 
exception of one, all the signatures of the preachers present were obtained. § 

*L:fe and Times, I. 516, 517. 

f Minutes, ed. 1813, p. 33. The days of the weelc are fixed by Asbury's Journal. 
{Hist, of the Methodists, pp. 78, 79. Cf. Dr. L. M. Lee, Life of Jesse Lee, pp. 100, 101. 
Dr. Lee adds, "A preacher in one division possessed the right to sit and vote in the other, 
g Journal, I. 344, 345. 



128 



American Methodism to 



In Asbury's Journal we have a most instructive picture of 
the ecclesiastical relations which Methodism gladly sus- 
tained in those days to the Episcopal Church in America, 
as well as in England, whenever a friendly rector permitted 
and encouraged it. The General-Assistant preaches at the 
humble "chapel" of the Methodist society, and then at- 
tends " Church" to receive the sacrament, and, by invita- 
tion, to read the lessons of the day before the loving sermon 
of the pious rector. The Methodist preacher becomes the 
guest of his clerical friend, and the two set out together for 
the Conference, where the rector preaches the opening ser- 
mon. The same preacher delivers the closing discourse 
and we do not wonder that the Conference adopted a min- 
ute acknowledging their obligations to the Rev. Mr. Jarratt, 
for his kind and friendly services to the preachers and peo- 
ple, and advising the preachers in the South to consult him 
in the absence of Mr. Asbury.* 

It will be noticed that, according to Asbury's memoran- 
dum, " with the exception of one, all the signatures of the 
preachers present were obtained" to the agreement con- 
cerning the ordinances. Though he may have been the 
single exception of the preceding year, James O'Kelly is 
not intended by Asbury's present entry; for he not only re- 
ceived an appointment, but on March 28, preceding the Con- 
ference, had promised Asbury " to join heartily in our con- 
nection." f In truth the last stand for the sacraments was 
made by the local preachers, who, disaffected toward their 
traveling brethren, sought to influence the people against 
them also. Thursday, Dec. 6, 1781, Asbury writes: 

Came to Baltimore. Here I received letters from Virginia, by which I 
learn that affairs are not so bad in Virginia as I feared: a few of the focal 
preachers have made some stir, and the traveling preachers have with- 
drawn from them and their adherents. . . . Virginia, Wednesday 19. 
. . . I find the spirit of party among some of the people: the local 
preachers tell them of the ordinances, and they catch at them like fish at a 
bait; but when they are informed that they will have to give up the travel- 
ing preachers, I apprehend they will not be so fond of their new plan; and 



* Minutes, ed. of 1813, p. 37. f Journal, I. 343. 



Peace and Prosperity : 1781-1784. 



129 



if I judge right, che last struggle of a yielding party will be made at the ap- 
proaching [Quarterly] Conference to be held at Manakintown. . . . 
Tuesday, January r, 1782. . . . There is considerable distress amongst 
our societies, caused by some of the local preachers, who are not satisfied 
unless they administer the ordinances without order or ordination.* 

Thus the traveling preachers had all at last been brought 
into line: that the battle went quickly and decisively against 
the local brethren, there is little room to doubt. 

Of the Baltimore session, Asbury gives but a short notice: 

Monday, 21st. A few of us began Conference in Baltimore. Next day 
we had a full meeting. The preachers all signed the agreement proposed 
at the Virginia Conference, and there was a unanimous resolve to adhere to 
the old Methodist plan. We spent most of the day in examining the 
preachers. 

Wednesday, 23d. We had many things before us. Our printing plan 
was suspended for the present for want of funds. 

Friday 25th. Was set apart for fasting and prayer. We had a love-feast. 
The Lord was present and all was well. The preachers, in general, were sat- 
isfied. I found myself burthened with labors and cares. We now have 
fifty-nine traveling preachers, and eleven thousand and seven hundred and 
eighty-five in society .j - 

His statistics are identical with those given in the Min- 
utes: % including himself, there were now sixty American 
itinerants, who were appointed to the charge of twenty-six 
circuits. 

In addition to the usual disciplinary or minute questions, 
the following concerning rules and regulations were asked: 

Ques. 13. How shall we more effectually guard against disorderly trav- 
eling preachers? Write at the bottom of every certificate: The authority 
this conveys is limited to next Conference. 

Ques. 14. How must we do if a preacher will not desist after being found 
guilty? Let the nearest assistant stop him immediately. In brother As- 
bury's absence let the preachers inform the people of these rules. 

Ques. 15. How shall we more effectually guard against disorderly local 
preachers? Write at the bottom of the certificate: This conveys authority 
no longer than you walk uprightly, and submit to the direction of the as- 
sistant preacher. 

Ques. 16. By what rule shall we conduct ourselves toward the preachers 
and people that separate from us? Disown them. § 

Dr. L. M. Lee had in his possession a manuscript copy of 



* Journal, I. 337, 338. 
t Journal, I. 346. 
9 



J Ed. of 1813, p. 36. 
§ Minutes, p. 36. 



130 American Methodism to 1784.. 

the minutes of the Conferences held at Ellis's Meeting- 
house for the years 1782, 1783, and 1784: the questions 
and answers, according to this manuscript, correspond 
with those of the printed minutes, with the exception of 
the answer to Question 16, which reads: "Put the people 
out of Society when they receive, and the preachers when 
they administer, the ordinances, if they have been previous- 
ly warned." * It is not improbable that this fuller answer, 
given at the session at Ellis's, was altered at Baltimore to 
the shorter, as being sufficiently obvious. 

For the first time a certificate of membership is ordered 
for the laity when removing, (Ques. 17) and the next 
question affords an explanation of how it comes to pass that 
both Gatch and Garrettson depose, as we have seen, to the 
consideration of the sacramental question at the Conference 
of 1777, the last in which Mr. Rankin presided, while the 
printed minutes contain no reference to the matter: " Ques. 
18. Shall we erase that question proposed in Deer Creek 
Conference respecting the ordinances? Undoubtedly we 
must. It can have no place in our Minutes while we stand 
to our agreement signed in Conference: it is, therefore, 
disannulled." 

Doubtless the same principles were applied to the expur- 
gation of the Fluvanna minutes; and so the printed minutes, 
first collected in 1795, contain no reference to the ordina- 
tions of Methodist preachers and their administration of 
the sacraments before 1784. 

The next question is important: " Ques. 19. Do the 
brethren in Conference unanimously choose brother As- 
bury to act according to Mr. Wesley's original appoint- 
ment, and preside over the American Conferences and the 
whole work? Yes." 

We have seen how this action had been previously taken 
at the irregular Delaware Conference of 1779 and how in 
1780, at the time of reconciliation in the Virginia Confer- 
ence, Mr. Asbury's superintendency had apparently been 



* Life of Jesse Lee, pp. 100-102. 



Peace and Prosperity : 1781—1784.. 131 



quietly acquiesced in; no formal action had been deemed 
necessary in 1781; but in 1782 Mr. Asbury was unanimous- 
ly chosen to "preside over the American Conferences and 
the whole work." 44 Mr. Wesley's original appointment" 
was also mentioned, however, and thus Mr. Asbury's au- 
thority rested upon the double foundation of original ap- 
pointment by Wesley and election by the preachers. He 
was growing familiar with election by the Conference, and 
these precedents doubtless suggested to his mind the alterna- 
tive of election to the Episcopal office in 1784, by which he 
sought and secured independence of Mr. Wesley's hitherto 
unquestioned supremacy. > 

For the first time the following question was asked in 
Conference: 44 Where and when shall our next Conferences 
be held? " and the answer was given 44 For Virginia the first 
Tuesday, and in Baltimore the last Wednesday, in May." 
And thus, as Jesse Lee remarks, 44 it was now settled and 
fixed to have two Conferences in each year." 

III. The Conference of 1783. 

The Eleventh Annual Conference, according to adjourn- 
ment of the preceding year, began its session at Ellis's 
Preaching-house, Sussex County, Va., Tuesday, May 6, 
1783, whence it adjourned to assemble again at Baltimore, 
Wednesday, May 27. General-Assistant Asbury was pres- 
ent and presided in both sessions. 44 After long rides 
through Fluvanna and Orange circuits," he writes, 44 I 
came to Petersburg on Monday the fifth of May; and the 
next day to Ellis's chapel." Thus the faithful itinerant su- 
perintendent was promptly on hand, on the day appointed 
a year before, to meet his Virginia Conference, though it is 
probable the Conference did not formally assemble until 
Wednesday morning. Asbury says, 44 Wednesday 7. Our 
Conference began at this place. Some young laborers were 
taken in to assist in spreading the gospel, which greatly 
prospers in the North. We all agree in the spirit of African 
liberty, and strong testimonies were borne in its favor in our 



132 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



love-feast: our affairs were conducted in love." His notice 
of the Baltimore session is very brief: " Tuesday, 26. We 
began our Conference with what preachers were present. 
On Wednesday we had a full assembly, which lasted until 
Friday." * 

The statistics show thirty-nine circuits, (New York and 
Norfolk reappearing on the list,) with 13,740 members, an 
increase of 1,955, served by eighty-two itinerants, excluding 
the General- Assistant " There were now but 1,623 Meth- 
odists north of Mason and Dixon's line ; 12,117 south of it." f 

The Conference maintained its advanced ground on slav- 
ery and temperance : 

®)iies. 10. What shall be done with our local preachers who hold slaves, 
contrary to the laws which authorize their freedom, in any of the United 
States? Ans. We will try them another year. In the meantime let every 
Assistant deal faithfully and plainly with every one, and report to the next 
Conference. It may then be necessary to suspend them. 

®>ues. 11. Should our friends be permitted to make spirituous liquors, 
sell, and drink them in drams? Ans. By no means; we think it wrong in 
nature and consequences, and desire all our preachers to teach the people 
by precept and example to put away this evil. 

At the preceding Conference it had been enacted that 
members removing to different parts of the Connexion 
should take a certificate of membership in the Society. 
The revolutionary war being now over and intercourse opened 
between England and America, it was natural to expect an 
influx of European Methodists, both preachers and people. 
Accordingly, in answer to the next question, the Conference 
determined, 4 'We will not receive them without a letter of 
recommendation, which we have no reason to doubt the 
truth of." At the Conference of 1778 general stewards for 
the Conference had been appointed; in 1782 the amount of 
the Conference collection is stated in the minutes, and spe- 
cific directions are given for the supply of the " deficien- 
cies " of the preachers; accordingly the final question of this 
session is, "Who are appointed as General Stewards? 
Ans. Samuel Owings, John Orick." 

* For all these extracts, see Journal I. 356. 
t Stevens, Hist. M. E. Ch., II. 112. 



■ *r.d Prosperity: 1781-1-8+. 133 

The Conference adjourns to meet in e< Baltimore, the 
fourth Tuesday in May." So fully and generally are the 
Virginia and Baltimore sessions now recognized as the sep- 
arate meetings of a single Conference, that though no men- 
tion of a preliminary session is made in the adjournment of 
1783, such an assembly gathers as usual at Ellis's in 1784. 
It was found necessary, also, to limit the attendance at the 
Conference sessions to the Assistants, and those who are 
to be received into connexion." The supply of the cir- 
cuits during the time of Conference, and not the entertain- 
ment of the body, was the difficulty. Hence at this Confer- 
ence, the Assistants are directed, in time of Conference, 
to 46 engage as many local preachers as can be depended 
upon, and such among them as are needy to be allowed 
for their labor in proportion with the traveling preachers." * 

About three months after Conference, xAsbury wrote to 
Shadford concernincr the American work. After giving 
the statistics, he mentions four clergymen who have 6 ' be- 
haved themselves friendly in attending Quarterly Meetings." 
They were Mr. Jarratt, in Virginia; Mr. Pettigrew, in North 
Carolina; Dr. McGaw, of Philadelphia: and Dr. Mogden, 
in East Jersey. He briefly rehearses the sacramental diffi- 
culties, and concludes: 

I travel 4,000 miles in a year, all weathers, among rich and poor, Dutch 
and English. O my dear Shadford, it would take a month to write out and 
speak what I want you to know. The most momentous is my constant 
communion with God as my God; my glorious victory over the world and 
the devil. I am continually with God. I preach frequently, and with more 
enlargement of heart than ever. * O America! America! it certainly will be 
the glory of the world for religion! I have loved, and do love America. I 
think it became necessarv after the fall that Government should lose it. 



Your old national pride, as a people, has got a blow. Y ou must abate a 
little.f 

IV. The Conference of 1784.. 

The Twelfth and last Annual Conference before the 
Episcopal organization of American Methodism was si be- 

"fQuoted from a forgotten periodical, by Stevens, II. 127, 128. 



134 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



gun at Ellis's Preaching-house, Virginia, April 30, 1784, 
and ended at Baltimore, May 28th, following."* Asbury 
presided in both sessions. Of the meeting at Ellis's he 
says, " Our business was conducted with uncommon love 
and unity." Of the Baltimore session he writes, 44 Our 
Conference began, all in peace. William Glendenning had 
been devising a plan to lay me aside, or at least to abridge 
my powers: Mr. Wesley's letter settled the point, and all 
was happy. The Conference rose on Friday morning." f 

This entry introduces an important topic which cannot be 
passed over. On Christmas eve, 1783, Asbury reached the 
home of Mr. Pettigrew, the friendly Episcopal clergyman 
before mentioned, in North Carolina, and makes this im- 
portant minute: 

Here I received a letter from Mr. Wesley, in which he directs me to act 
as general assistant, and to receive no preachers from Europe that are not 
recommended by him; nor any in America who will not submit to me and 
to the Minutes of the Conference. J 

Stevens says the letter was addressed to the Conference, 
and Jesse Lee gives "an extract:" 

Bristol, October 3, 1783. 

1. Let all of you be determined to abide by the Methodist doctrine and 
discipline, published in the four volumes of Sermons, and the Notes upon 
the New Testament, together with the Large Minutes of the Conference. 

2. Beware of preachers coming from Great Britain or Ireland without a 
full recommendation from me. Three of our traveling preachers here 
eagerly desired to go to America, but I could not approve of it by any 
means, because I am not satisfied that they thoroughly like either our disci- 
pline or doctrine. I think they differ from our judgment in one or both. 
Therefore, if these or any others come without my recommendation, take 
care how you receive them. 

3. Neither should you receive any preachers, however recommended, 
who will not be subject to the American Conference, and cheerfully con- 
form to the Minutes both of the English and American Conferences. 

4. I do not wish our American brethren to receive any who make any 
difficulty of receiving Francis Asbury as the General Assistant. 

Undoubtedly the greatest danger to the work of God in America is likelv 
to arise either from preachers coming from Europe, or from such as will 
arise from among yourselves speaking perverse things, or bringing in 
among you new doctrines, particularly Calvinian. You should guard 



£ Minutes, ed. 1813, p. 43. f Asbury's Journal, ed. 1821, I. 367. J Journal, !• 363. 



Peace and Prosperity : 1781—1784.. 



135 



against this with all possible care, for it is far easier to keep them out than 
to thrust them out. 

I commend you all to the grace of God, and am jour affectionate friend 
and brother, John Wesley.* 

It is not improbable that this letter was suggested by an 
epistle of Edward Dromgoole's to Wesley, under date of 
May 24, 1783, in which he said: 

The preachers at present are united to Mr. Asbury, and esteem him very 
highly in love for his work's sake, and earnestly desire his continuance on 
the continent during his natural life ; and to act as he does at present, to 
wit, to superintend the whole work and go through all the circuits once a 
year. He is now well acquainted with the country, with the preachers and 
people, and has a large share in the affections of both ; therefore they would 
not willingly part with him. 

Asbury received the letter from Mr. Wesley exactly one 
year before the assembling of the Christmas Conference. 
Mr. Wesley had appointed no General-Assistant for Ameri- 
ca since Mr. Rankin's return in 1777. Asbury had been 
unanimously chosen to the office by the Conference of 1782. 
Mr. Wesley now formally confirms this election, of which he 
had doubtless been informed, wishing no preachers to be re- 
ceived into the American Conference who made " any diffi- 
culty of receiving Francis Asbury as the General-Assistant." 
On the eve of the Episcopal organization of our Methodism, 
Asbury holds alone the general superintendency by a double 
tenure: Wesley's appointment protects him against a rebel- 
lious Glendenning at home ; the Conference election leaves 
him not absolutely in the hands of the Methodist patriarch 
abroad. We can clearly see why he clung to the privilege 
and support of Conference election, when, in this very year, 
Wesley promoted him to the office of General Superintend- 
ent or " Bishop." Yet by this letter Wesley asserts his con- 
tinued authority over American Methodism, and that author- 
ity is not disputed either by Asbury or -the Conference. Mr. 
Wesley's first direction defines clearly, once more, the sin- 
gle doctrinal and disciplinary basis of Methodism. Euro- 
pean preachers holding other views are to be excluded from 



*Hist. of Methodists, pp. 85, 86. 



136 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



the American Connexion. The American minutes are to 
have equal authority with the English; and Asbury is to 
continue, by his authority, as General- Assistant. The ef- 
fects of this letter are clearly discernible in the legislation 
of the Annual Conference held in the spring of 1784? most 
of its suggestions being summed up in the answer to a single 
question : 

Ques. 21. How shall we conduct ourselves toward European preachers? 
Ans. If they are recommended by Mr. Wesley, will be subject to the Amer- 
ican Conference, preach the doctrine taught in the four volumes of Sermons 
and Notes on the New Testament, keep the circuits they are appointed to, 
follow the directions of the London and American Minutes, and be subject 
to Francis Asbury as General Assistant, whilst he stands approved by Mr. 
Wesley and the Conference, we shall receive them ; but if they walk con- 
trary to the above directions, no ancient rite or appointment shall prevent 
their being excluded from our connection. 

Asbury' s double tenure, it will be observed, is carefully 
guarded by the language, " whilst he stands approved by 
Mr. Wesley and the Conference." The doctrinal stand- 
ards, here once more formally adopted by Conference ac- 
tion, it seems most appropriate should be reserved for pres- 
entation in the separate chapter following. We are now 
on the eve of the transformation of the Societies into a 
Church: a new nation has been born, and the Protestant 
ecclesiasticism which has largely supplied its religious needs 
is about to be formed. At this juncture it seems fitting that 
we should take a formal survey of its standards of doctrinal 
belief and public religious teaching. 

Anti-slavery legislation, concerning members, local 
preachers, and itinerants, was passed in these terms: 

^ues. 12. What shall we do with our friends that will buy and sell slaves? 
Ans. If they buy with no other design than to hold them as slaves, and have 
been previously warned, they shall be expelled, and permitted to sell on no 
consideration. 

®hies. 13. What shall we do with our local preachers who will not eman- 
cipate their slaves in the States where the laws admit it? Ans. Try those 
in Virginia another year, and suspend the preachers in Maryland, Delaware, 
Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. 

®hies. 22. What shall be done with our traveling preachers that now are, 
or hereafter shall be, possessed of slaves, and refuse to manumit them where 
the law permits? Ans Employ them no more. 



Peace and Prosperity : 1781-1784.. 137 



Jesse Lee, who was present when these regulations were 
placed on the statute book, and witnessed their operation 
among preachers and people, observes: " However good the 
intention of the preachers might be in framing these rules, 
we are well assured that they never were of any particular 
service to our societies. Some of the slaves, however, ob- 
tained their freedom in consequence of these rules." 

For the first time the question is asked in the Minutes, 
44 What preachers have died this year? " The General- As- 
sistant is allowed 44 twenty-four pounds, with his expenses 
for horses and traveling, brought to, and paid at Confer- 
ence.' 7 Thirteen wives of preachers are allowed £302, 
against £206 for eleven the year before. The preachers 
are directed carefully to avoid superfluity in dress and to 
speak frequently and faithfully against it in all the societies. 

Question 8 enacts a very important measure: "How 
shall we keep good order among the preachers and provide 
for contingencies in the vacancy of Conference and absence 
of the General-Assistant? Ans. Let any three Assistants 
do what may be thought most eligible, call to an account, 
change, suspend, or receive a preacher till Conference." 
Thus the provisions for arrest and trial were increasing and 
the itinerants were being held to a more rigid supervision 
and account. The office of presiding elder did not yet ex- 
ist. The Assistants had charge of the 44 Helpers" in their 
circuits, but there was no officer intermediate between them 
and the General-Assistant, who must travel throughout all the 
circuits from North Carolina to New York and by personal 
knowledge of the men and the work, form his judgment for 
making the appointments and directing affairs at Conference. 

As far back as 1774, as we have seen, it was ordered that 
every Assistant should take a general collection, 44 to be ap- 
plied to the sinking of the debts on the houses and relieving 
the preachers in want." This primitive Church extension 
movement is now a little further developed: 

®hies. 10. What can be done towards erecting new chapels, and dis- 
charging the debts on those already built? Ans. Let the assistant preacher 
put a yearly subscription through the circuits, and insist upon every mem- 



138 



American Methodism to 1784. 



ber that is not supported by charity to give something ; let them subscribe 
the first quarter and pay the second; and the money to be applied by two 
General Stewards." 

For the first time, three Conference sessions are appoint- 
ed for the following year, " The first at Green Hill's (North 
Carolina), Friday 29th and Saturday 30th of April; the sec- 
ond in Virginia, at Conference Chapel, May 8th; the third 
in Maryland, Baltimore, the 15th day of June." * So is 
the work expanding: before these three Annual Confer- 
ences, as we may venture to call them, shall assemble, the 
Methodist Episcopal Church will have been organized, and 
General Superintendents Coke and Asbury, with their as- 
sociated Elders and Deacons, will be the leaders of the 
American itinerancy. All three of these Conferences were 
in the South. The last statistics reported before the organ- 
ization of the Church give ' 4 but 1,607 Methodists north of 
Mason and Dixon's line, and 13,381 south of it."f 

Of the last Conference of the colonial period of Amer- 
ican Methodism, and of Asbury its chief, Thomas Ware, 
who was present, shall sketch the picture: 

I doubt whether there ever has been a Conference among us in which 
an equal number could be found in proportion to the whole so dead to the 
world and so gifted and enterprising as were present at the Conference of 
1784. Among these pioneers, Asbury, by common consent, stood first and 
chief. There was something in his person, his eye, his mien, and in the 
music of his voice which interested all who saw and heard him. He pos- 
sessed much natural wit, and was capable of the severest satire; but grace 
and good sense so far predominated, that he never descended to anything 
beneath the dignity of a man and a Christian minister. In prayer he ex- 
celled. Had he been equally eloquent in preaching, he would have excited 
universal admiration as a pulpit orator. But when he was heard for the first 
time, the power and unction with which he prayed would naturally so 
raise the expectation of his auditors that they were liable to be disappointed 
with his preaching ; for, although he always preached well, in his sermons 
he seldom, if ever, reached that high and comprehensive flow of thought 
and expression — that expansive and appropriate diction — which always 
characterized his prayers. This may be accounted for, in part at least, 
from the fact stated by the late Rev. Freeborn Garrettson in preaching his 
funeral sermon. " He prayed," said the venerable Garrettson, " the best, 
and he prayed the most of any man I ever knew." J 

* For all the preceding, see Minutes, ed. of 1813, pp. 46-48. f Stevens, Hist. M. E. Ch., II. 132. 

\ Autobiography, p. 83. 



CHAPTER IX. 



THE DOCTRINAL STANDARDS OF ECUMENICAL METHODISM. 



THE first restrictive rule limiting the powers of the Gen- 
eral Conference distinguishes between "Articles of Re- 
ligion " and "our present existing and established stand- 
ards of doctrine." The Articles, twenty-five in number, 
are set forth at length in the first section of the first chapter 
of the Discipline. Unfortunately we cannot gather from 
this volume itself any information concerning the "estab- 
lished standards of doctrine," existing when this rule was 
framed in 1808. History, therefore, must be our recourse 
for supplying this defect and giving a correct interpretation of 
the language. We may congratulate ourselves that on so 
vital a head the materials are adequate and afford conclu- 
sive results. 

The first section of the first chapter of the first part of the 
Discipline of " The Methodist Church of Canada " reads as 
follows : 

Standards of Doctrine. 
The doctrines of the Methodist Church of Canada are declared to be 
those contained in the Twenty-five Articles of Religion, and those taught 
by the Rev. John Wesley, M.A., in his Notes on the New Testament, and 
in the first fiftj'-two Sermons of the first series of his discourses, published 
during his life-time.* 

It were well if this declaration formed the first section of 
the first chapter of the first part of the Discipline of every 
Methodist Church in the world. The declaration is true of 
every Methodist Church throughout the world, but our Ca- 
nadian brethren enjoy the distinction and advantage of pref- 
acing their Articles of Religion with this explicit and per- 
spicuous statement. This declaration enumerates the three 
elements of the Ecumenical Creed of Methodism. From 



* Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Church of Canada, 1882, p. 9. 

(139) 



140 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



the beginning to this date, there has been no doctrinal di- 
vision in Methodism. World-wide Methodism receives 
these standards. As Professor Burwash has well pointed 
out, the first fifty-two Sermons constitute the standard of 
-preaching ; the Notes on the New Testament, the standard 
of interpretation ; and the Twenty-five Articles, the stand- 
ard of unity with the Churches of the Reformation.* 

The first restrictive rule, limiting the powers of the Gen- 
eral Conference, reads: ''The General Conference shall 
not revoke, alter, or change our Articles of Religion, or es- 
tablish any new standards or rule of doctrine contrary to 
our present existing and established standards of doctrine." 
What are the "present existing and established standards 
of doctrine" here referred to? The rule was adopted by 
the General Conference of 1808, and consequently nothing 
of later date can be placed among the 44 existing standards." 
Unquestionably the standards "existing and established" in 
1808 were, besides the Articles, Mr. Wesley's first fifty-two 
Sermons and his Notes on the New Testament, as will be 
shown at length in the sequel. It was unfortunate, however, 
that those who framed and passed the restrictive rules in 
1808 took for granted that posterity would possess that fa- 
miliar knowledge of the standards which belonged to them- 
selves. As a consequence they did not formally enumerate 
the standards either in the restrictive rules or elsewhere in 
the Discipline. As the fathers passed away, the Church 
gradually lost sight of the exact works which constituted the 
standards mentioned in the restrictive rule. The doctrinal 
uniformity of American Methodism, and its freedom from 
controversy and heresy, could receive no more striking il- 
lustration than in this fact that the Church suffered to drop 
out of notice the standards to which there never arose oc- 
casion for serious appeal. Even a man so cautious and cor- 
rect as Bishop McTyeire was at a loss. In the earlier edi- 
tions of his "Manual of the Discipline," after quoting the 
first restrictive rule, he says: 

* Wesley's Sermons, edited by Rev. N. Burwash, S.T.D., Professor of 
Theology in the University of Victoria College. Introduction, p. xi. 



Doctrinal Standards of Ecumenical Methodism. 141 



Some of the leading and characteristic doctrines of Methodism are not 
mentioned in the twenty-five technically called "Articles of Religion ; " and 
these "established standards of doctrine" the Church is as fully pledged to 
and as much obliged to maintain as the Articles. Usage and general con- 
sent indicate these standard expositions of the Bible to be Wesley's Ser- 
mons and his Notes on the New Testament, Watson's Theological Insti- 
tutes and the Wesleyan Methodist Catechisms, and the Hymn-book * 

But Watson's " Theological Institutes" cannot be re- 
ferred to in the restrictive rule, for that masterly body of di- 
vinity was not then published or even written. The pref- 
ace bears date, " London, March 26, 1823," but this is 
really the date of the issue of Part L, embracing only the 
Evidences of Christianky.t The preparation and publica- 
tion of the entire work covered a period of about seven 
years, from 1822 to 1829. It was issued in six parts, Part 
II. appearing early in 1824, Part III. in the autumn of 1825, 
Part IV. in the autumn of 1826, Part V. in May, 1828, and 
Part VI. as late as July 1, 18294 Accordingly, in the later 
editions of his ''Manual," we find Bishop McTyeire mak- 
ing some corrections: 

American Methodists (1781) vowed to "preach the old Methodist doc- 
trine" of Wesley's "Notes and Sermons." May, 1784, "the doctrine 
taught in the four voiumes of Sermons [the first fifty -two of our edition] 
and Notes on the New Testament" was reaffirmed. The Deed of Declara- 
tion (February, 1784) legally established these standards in the parent body. 
The Rule (1808) guards them equally with the Articles. Usage allows 
Watson's Theological Institutes and the authorized Catechisms and Hymn- 
book to be high expository authority. § 

Note a difference: Institutes, Catechisms, and Hymn- 
book are "high expository authority," but the restrictive 
rule does not guard them; the first fifty-two Sermons of 
Mr. Wesley and his Notes on the New Testament " the Rule 
guards equally with the Articles" and Sermons, Notes, and 
Articles are by a common boundary fenced within the same 
enclosure. 

Recurring now to the Minutes of the Conference of 1781, 

* Manual of the Discipline, Ed. of 1876, p. 131. 
•j-Jackson's Life of Watson, p. 265. 

JJackson's Life of Watson, pp. 278, 304, 322, 340, and 353. 

§ Manual of the Discipline, Ed. of 1883, and all later editions, p. 131. 



142 



American Methodism to 1784. 



we find the first question to be this: "What preachers are 
now determined, after mature consideration, close observa- 
tion, and earnest prayer, to preach the old Methodist doc- 
trine, and strictly enforce the discipline, as contained in 
the Notes, Sermons, and Minutes published by Mr. Wesley, 
so far as they respect both preachers and people, according 
to the knowledge we have of them, and the ability God 
shall give?" The same standards, we have seen, are nom- 
inated in the chapel deeds which were directed to be drawn 
by the action of the American Conference in 1780. 

In the Minutes of 1784 occurs the following with regard 
to European preachers: 

If they are recommended by Mr. Wesley, will be subject to the Ameri- 
can Conference, preach the doctrine taught in the four volumes of Sermons, and 
Notes on the Neiv Testament, keep the circuits they are appointed to, follow 
the direction of the London and American Minutes, and be subject to 
Francis Asbury as general assistant, while he stands approved by Mr. Wes- 
ley and the Conference, we will receive them, etc. 

This question we know embodies precisely the points in- 
dicated by Mr. Wesley's letter to the Conference, received 
by Asbury Christmas Eve, 1783, and quoted by Jesse Lee. 

When the chapel deeds were reduced to permanent form, 
the Doctrinal Standards were nominated in the "Deed of 
Settlement." In the " Deed of Settlement " of each chapel 
it was placed in the hands of local trustees, who, after the 
decease of Mr. Wesley, should " permit such persons as 
shall be appointed at the yearly conferences of the people 
called Methodists, in London, Bristol, Leeds, Manchester, 
or elsewhere, specified by name in a deed enrolled in chan- 
cery, under the hand and seal of the said John Wesley, and 
bearing date the 28th of February, 1784, and no others, to 
have and enjoy the said premises for the put poses afore- 
said; provided, always, that the persons preach no other 
doctrine than is contained in Mr. Wesley's Notes upon 
the New Testament and four volumes of Sermons." * 

*See in full the "Model Deed for the Settlement of Chapels " in Smith's 
Hist, of Wesleyan Meth., I. 736. It is the ordinary legal trust deed and 
must be distinguished from the " Deed of Declaration " enrolled in chancery 
in 1784 and designed to define and protect the Deeds of Settlement under 



Doctrinal Standards of Ecumenical Methodism. 143 



Referring to the Course of Study as contained in the 
current edition of the Discipline (1890), we find that the 
bishops have made some significant changes. The present 
generation of preachers may have forgotten the works which 
constitute the standards: the bishops have so adjusted the 
Course of Study that in a few years hence every deacon in 
the Connection will be as familiar with all the standards as 
each itinerant now is with the Articles of Religion. Instead 
of assigning one volume of Wesley's Sermons to each year 
in the four years' course, as heretofore, the bishops have 
omitted the third and fourth volumes. The first fifty-two 
sermons of the edition issued by our Publishing House in- 
clude all the sermons embraced in the original four-volume 
edition; and these fifty-two sermons are the ones nomina- 
ted as standards of doctrine in Mr. Wesley's original 
" Deeds of Settlement " for his chapels and referred to 
by the American Methodists in their Conference resolu- 
tions of 1780, 1781, and 1784. Accordingly, the Book 
Editor of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, has ed- 
ited the fifty-two sermons, with introductions, analyses, and 
questions, and they have been published in two "Volumes 
with the distinctive title of " Wesley an Standards." In the 
Course of Study for the first and second years, as it appears 
in the Discipline, these two volumes are denominated 
" Wesley's Doctrinal Standards." The general introduc- 
tion to Vol. II. concludes with this language: " In accord- 
ance with this construction of the Constitution of the Church 
[the obvious import of the first restrictive rule, as recited 
above] the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, have placed these Wesleyan Standards in the Course 
of Study for young ministers." * The Notes on the New 
Testament are also included in the Course of Study for the 
first two years. 

it. This " Model Deed " was first published in the English Minutes of 1788, 
(Smith, I. 586) but a deed, precisely the same so far as the nomination of 
doctrinal standards is concerned, had been in use from a very early date, ac- 
cording to John Pawson, since 1750. 

*The Wesleyan Standards, Introduction to Vol. II., p. 6. 



144 American Methodism to 1784.. 



Students and examining committees have been laid under 
great obligations by the work which Dr. Harrison has so 
skillfully done for them. In his Introduction to Volume I. 
he lucidly sets forth the advantages of standards in this full 
sermonic form: 

There is, however, a marked difference between the doctrinal standards of 
Methodism and those of other Churches. Protestant Churches have adopt- 
ed, almost without exception, confessions of faith or articles of religion as 
the sole standard of doctrinal teaching. These they regard as brief summa- 
ries of the gospel contained in the New Testament. Mr. Wesley departed 
from the custom of ages by giving to his followers not merely the outlines 
of a system of truth to be subscribed and believed, but the method and sub- 
stance of doctrine in the form of sermons delivered from the pulpit. The 
wisdom of this method the experience of more than a century has demon- 
strated. The brief, and often ambiguous, forms of a creed may sometimes 
promote, instead of preventing, dissension and controversy. In such a con- 
cise statement the mere letter of the truth can be recorded. In the Wesley - 
an Standards we have the spirit of the truth also. The manner of present- 
ing the great doctrines of the gospel, the arguments by which the truth of 
God may be most successfully defended, and the objections which the sinful 
nature of man presents in the form of excuse or extenuation for neglect or 
abuse of the divine mercy, are all set forth with felicity of diction and com- 
prehensiveness of knowledge. The forms of error which Mr. Wesley attacks 
are not those which are peculiar to a country or an age. However they may 
change the distinctive expressions which apply to them in the eighteenth 
century, these errors are still in existence, and must be overthrown if the 
gospel is to meet the wants of the world and destroy the kingdom of Satan. 

In a similar vein writes Professor Burwash : 

The precise form which the standards of any Church will take will thus 
naturally depend on the circumstances of its origin. A Church arising out 
of a great intellectual movement, like the Churches of the Reformation, will 
naturally fortify itself with creeds, confessions, and catechisms; inasmuch 
as its existence and success depend so largely upon the logical validity of its 
teachings. A Church arising out of a great evangelistic movement quite as 
naturally finds its standard in a grand, distinctive norm or type of preaching, 
. . . The Church of the Apostles was an evangelistic Church. Its stand- 
ard of doctrine was first of all a type of preaching, of which we doubtless have 
a compressed yet faithful exhibit in the synoptic Gospels. The Pauline and 
the Petrine, Luke and Mark, set forth one Christ, in essentially one gospel, 
of which John, a little further on, sets forth the more perfect unification and 
expansion — just as Matthew had given the foundation. To this consensus 
of preaching, this normal or standard gospel, Paul makes constant reference 
in his Epistles, although it had not been reduced to written form. . 
We, therefore, claim for the "Sermons" and "Notes" a foremost place 
among the Christian symbols. The sermons set before us that great, distinc- 



Doctrinal Standards of Ecumenical Methodism, 145 



five type and standard of gospel preaching by ■which Methodism is what she is as a 
great living Church. When she ceases to preach according to this type and 
standard she will no longer be Weslejan Methodism. No other Church of 
modern times can boast of such a standard of preaching, so mighty and perva- 
sive in its power to preserve the perfect doctrinal as well as spiritual unity 
of the entire body. God save us from the day when the Methodist ministry 
shall cease to study this standard, and to preach according thereto'.* 

Moreover, it is a great mistake to suppose that these ser- 
mons are put together without a doctrinal method and in- 
tent. Dr. Burwash gives us the following clear analysis of 
the doctrines taught in them : 

1. The universality and impartiality of God's grace to man as manifested 
in the provisions of the atonement. 

2. The freedom of the human will, and man's individual probational re- 
sponsibility to God. 

3. The absolute necessity, in religion, of holiness in heart and life. 

4. The natural impossibility of this to fallen human nature. 

5. The perfect provision for this necessity and impossibility, as well as 
for the pardon of past sins, in the salvation offered by Christ. 

6. The sole condition of this salvation — faith. 

7. The conscious witness of the Spirit to this salvation. 

This full-orbed conception of spiritual religion embraced the great scrip- 
tural verities of all ages and schools of Christian thought. It grasped the 
wideness of God's love with the old Greek Christian and the modern Ar- 
minian, and it sounded the depths of the human heart with Augustine. It 
maintained the necessity of good works with the Roman Church, and it rec- 
ognized the peculiar import of faith with Protestantism. With the Church- 
man it held the importance of means, and with the evangelical mystic it rec- 
ognized the peculiar office of inward grace; and it built the doctrines of in- 
ward holiness and Christian perfection of the English mystics upon their 
true foundation by uniting them to the evangelical principle of saving faith ."f 

A final quotation from Dr. Burwash will suffice to place 
the remaining standards — namely, the Notes and the Articles 
— in their proper light before the reader: 

The Notes have also their peculiar and unique value. They open up to 
us the mode of interpretation by which the grand type of preaching con- 
tained in the Sermons was derived from its fountain-head — the New Testa- 
ment of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. They are thus the link which 
binds our subordinate standards with the original apostolic standard. With- 
out that link our form of preaching would be deprived of its divine authori- 
zation. 

But the Articles of Religion have their own appropriate place in our doc- 



*Dr. Burwash, Wesley's Doctrinal Standards: The Sermons. Introduction, pp, viH.-x. 
|Dr. Burwash's Introduction, pp. xii., xiii. 

10 



146 



American Methodism to 1J84.. 



trinal foundations. They indicate that which we have received as our com- 
mon heritage from the great principles of the Protestant Reformation, and 
from the still more ancient conflicts with error in the days of Augustine and 
Athanasius. They represent the Methodist Church in its unity with Chris- 
tendom and Protestantism ; but the " Sermons and Notes " represent it in 
its one completeness as a living form of religion, called into being by the 
Spirit and Providence of God.* 

Until 1882 the parent body of Methodism, the English 
Wesley an Methodists, received the entire Thirty-nine Arti- 
cles of the Church of England as a standard of doctrine — a 
fact which will explain some statements in Pope's Compen- 
dium of Christian Theology. But in that year the Confer- 
ence adopted the Twenty-five Articles instead, of course 
properly altering the XXIII. on civil government. Thus in 
1882 was the doctrinal unity of Ecumenical Methodism ren- 
dered complete, by the final acceptance in England of the 
Articles which Mr. Wesley prepared for the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church in America. If the English Wesleyans, and all 
other bodies of Methodists throughout the world, could be 
brought to adopt the Episcopal form of Church government, 
we should have universal Methodism conforming to Mr. Wes- 
ley's ideal and plan, in respect of both doctrine and polity. 
It is not likely to be misunderstood if we venture to add that 
there can be little doubt that the Methodist Episcopal Church- 
es are truer exponents and examples of Mr. Wesley's views 
and intentions respecting the constitution of the Church and 
the governmentof his followers than the non-episcopal bodies. 
But this question will come up again. How those views and 
intentions were carried into execution in the organization of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of 
America will be narrated in our next Book. 

It is scarcely necessary to add that the doctrinal standards 
which we have been considering are conditions of admission 
to, and continuance in, the ministry, but have no bearing 
on private membership in the Church. The " General 
Rules " are the recognized terms of communion throughout 
Methodism. They are free from dogmatic definitions or re- 



*Burwash, Introduction to The Sermons, p. x. 



Doctrinal Standards of Ecumenical Methodism. 147 



quirements. " There is only one condition previously re- 
quired of those who desire admission into these societies — a 
* desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from 
their sins,' " which, however, must continue to be evidenced 
by the fruits described at length under the three divisions of 
the General Rules. The General Conference has no power 
either to abrogate this one term of communion or to add an- 
other to it.* When Wesley gave the Articles of Religion to 
the American Church he did not make them a condition of 
membership. "The 'Articles of Religion ' and the 6 Gen- 
eral Rules ' are both parts of the constitutional law of Amer- 
ican Methodism; but the General Rules still prescribe the 
6 only condition ' of membership, and mention not the Arti- 
cles or any other dogmatic symbols." f Private members 
may be tried and expelled for sowing dissensions in the So- 
cieties and inveighing against Methodist doctrine and dis- 
cipline, but not for opinions or beliefs they may hold. 
"While Wesley thus sacredly maintained the catholicity of 
Church communion, he nevertheless guarded with care the 
theology of Methodism. His Notes and some of his Ser- 
mons were made standards in this respect. This was in fact 

* Of a provision in the Discipline of the M. E. Church, similar to one in 
our own, Dr. Abel Stevens says: "It has sometimes been a question wheth- 
er doctrinal opinions are not required for admission by the administrative 
prescription adopted since Wesley's day : ' Let none be received until they 
shall, on examination by the minister in charge before the Church, give sat- 
isfactory assurances both of the correctness of their faith and their willing- 
ness to keep the rules.' It may be replied, 1. That, according to Wesley's 
definition, of the faith essential to a true Church, there could be no difficulty 
here. 2. That, as the requisition is merely an administrative one for the 
preachers, and prescribes not what are to be " satisfactory assurances," etc., 
the latter are evidently left to the discretion of the pastor, and the require- 
ment is designed to afford him the opportunity of further instructing the 
candidate, or of receiving from him pledges that his opinions shall not be- 
come a practical abuse in the society. 3. If the rule amounts to more than 
this, it would probably be pronounced, by good judges of Methodist law, in- 
compatible with the usages and general system of Methodism, an oversight 
of the General Conference which enacted it, and contrary to the General 
Rules, as guarded by the Restrictive Rules." (Hist, of Meth., II. 449, foot- 
note.) 

•j" Ibid., p. 448. 



148 



American Methodism to 1784.. 



necessary for his catholic purpose ; for what could more ef- 
fectively promote theological variations or dissensions among 
his people, than continual variations or contradictions in their 
public instruction?" * Wesley declared to his preachers, 
" 1 have no more right to object to a man for holding a dif- 
ferent opinion from my own, than I have to differ with a 
man because he wears a wig and I wear my own hair, though 
I have a right to object if he shakes the powder about my 
eyes," and hence he prescribed a character and life, rather 
than subscription to doctrines, as essential to membership 
in the United Societies. 



* Hist, of Meth., II. 447. 



BOOK III. 



The Grand Climacteric Year: 1784. 

I. The Deed of Declaration and Wesley's Final 

Settlement of English Methodism. 
II. The Christmas Conference and Wesley's Final 
Settlement of Episcopal Methodism. 
III. The First Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. 

(149) 



CHAPTER X. 



THE DEED OF DECLARATION AND WESLEY'S FINAL SETTLE' 



" T^HE year 1784," says Dr. Whitehead, "brings us to 
1 the grand climacterical year of Methodism. Not, in- 
deed, if we number the years of its existence [the 63d year 
is esteemed the grand climacteric of human life] but if we 



at once the original Constitution of Methodism: this would 
have been too great a shock; but the seeds of its corrup- 
tion and final dissolution were this year solemnly planted, 
and have since been carefully watered and nursed by a pow- 
erful party among the preachers. The changes to which I 
allude were 1, The Deed of Declaration; and 2, Ordina- 
tion." * The medical practitioner's knowledge enabled the 
doctor to borrow an apposite term, descriptive of supposed 
changes in the human constitution, and apply it to the crit- 
ical transition period in the development of Methodism, both 
at home and across the seas; but subsequent events, com- 
pared with this record, have totally eclipsed his fame as a 
prophet, just as the fidelity of other chroniclers has robbed 
him of repute as the biographer of Wesley and the would-be 
historian of Methodism. f Robert Southey, however, un- 

* Life of Wesley, II. 248. 

•f- My copy of Whitehead's Wesley was once the property of an eminent 
Methodist preacher, now deceased, who, after reading it in two weeks, while 
yet a young man, says on the fly-leaf: " I wonder not that the Methodists 
were at loggerheads with Dr. W. They had a right to oppose htm, in set- 
ting himself up as John Wesley's biographer and the historian of Metho- 
dism, because, (1) He was a bungler as a writer; with a wealth of fresh ma- 
terial at command he has made a poor book. His selections from MSS. are 
not always good. His comments are flat and impertinent. (2) He was a 
buli-headed, self-conceited, prejudiced creature — saw not John Wesley's 



MENT OF ENGLISH METHODISM. 




(151) 



152 The Grand Climacteric Tear: 1784. 

fortunately treated him as an authority, and echoes his sen- 
timent, minus his dismal prophecies, about the ''grand cli- 
macterical year," so called, " because Wesley then first arro- 
gated to himself an episcopal power; and because in that 
year the legal settlement of the Conference was effected, 
whereby provision was made for the government of the So- 
ciety after his death." * 

Undoubtedly it was the "grand climacteric " year. Wes- 
ley was eightyone years old. But seven years of life, as the 
event proved, remained to him. Many among preachers 
and members — some of them plotters and schemers — were 
awaiting his end with pious resignation. His dissolution, it 
was confidently expected, would prove also the dissolution 
of the Methodist Connexion, united by a personal bond, 
which death should loose. Methodism, spread defenseless 
throughout the British Isles, was a rich prey. Hovering 
over it were eagles — and other birds hardly worthy the aqui- 
line name or company — with sharpened beak and claw, 
ready for the feast. Chapels and congregations were ready 
to the hand of popular favorites who would soon settle with 
all the freedom of Independents, rid at last of the ceaseless 
martial music to which Wesley had kept the itinerant ranks 
of Methodism moving. 'Twas a pleasing prospect. To be 

strong points- — took Charles for the greater man of the two — objects to the 
great and leading acts of his hero's life, and that he may back up his objec- 
tions, he begins early and loses no opportunity to discredit Wesley's judg- 
ment — his knowledge of men — his firmness in adhering to his well-advised 
purposes, etc. If Dr. Whitehead really was selected by John Wesley as a 
biographer or literary executor, it is the most conclusive evidence of the 
book against his judgment and penetration. — Much damage has been done 
Methodism by this spiteful, anti-Methodistic book. — It is full of the author's 
own grudges, and personal and party dislikes — a cheat — an imposition." In 
another place the same writer says: "Dr. John Whitehead, the author of 
this Life of Wesley, which is rejected by all Wesleyans, and of this history 
of Methodism, which none but its enemies receive, was one of those 
spoonies that never tire of extolling the Establishment and would have had 
English Methodism play second fiddle to it until it ' played out ' — which it 
would soon have done. Imagine a Life of George Washington written by 
a tory ! Such is this ' Life.' " 

*Southey's Life of Wesley, Amer. ed. 1858, II. 284. 



Wesley's Final Settlement of English Methodism. 153 



sure for more than thirty years the title-deeds of the chapels 
had bound trustees, preachers, and people to Wesley's doc- 
trinal standards. But then the preachers were to be ap- 
pointed by the "Yearly Conference of the People called 
Methodists." And such a body had no legal existence. 
Scarcely should Wesley be laid in his grave, before the law- 
yers would help the trustees into permanent possession and 
control of the chapels, and the preachers into pulpits, over 
which neither a Methodist Conference nor an English Bish- 
op could exercise supervision. In America, Asbury had 
suppressed the sacramentarians, and the presbyterian organ- 
ization of Methodism, only after protracted and strenuous 
effort; and then had succeeded by joining the recalcitrants 
in a common appeal to Wesley, and thus holding out the hope 
of speedy and effectual relief from that source. Had Wes- 
ley died without episcopally organizing American Methodism, 
it is difficult to see how these trans-Atlantic Societies could 
have had a future. If Asbury's consecrated will and tact 
could have held the Americans together until his death, the 
English dissolution, on Wesley's death, must then have re- 
peated itself in America. Methodism's contributions to the 
ministry and membership of Episcopal and Independent bod- 
ies, in England and America, from the beginning to this good 
day, have been innumerable. But for Wesley's foresight 
and firmness, Methodism would long ago have been swal- 
lowed up. It is not too much to say that, notwithstanding its 
glorious successes won under the personal leadership and con- 
trol of Wesley, Methodism, but for the measures adopted in 
1784, "the grand climacteric year," when the seeds of its 
perpetual union and, we trust, immortal usefulness, were 
planted, to be carefully watered and nursed by powerful 
confederacies of itinerant preachers, would have long since 
disappeared from the face of the earth. To-day, Methodist 
Churches and Methodist Societies, out of which the 
Churches were formed, would have been alike unknown to 
the world. 

The evil showed itself in prominent overt acts, previous to this period. 



154 The Grand Climacteric Tear: 1784.. 



Mr. Wesley, having striven to prevail on some trustees, in Yorkshire,* to 
settle their chapels, so that the people might continue to hear the same 
truths and be under the same discipline as heretofore, was assailed with cal- 
umny, and with the most determined opposition, as though he intended to 
make the chapels his own! Another set of trustees, in the same county, ab- 
solutely refused to settle a lately erected chapel ; and, in the issue, engaged 
Mr. Wesley's book-steward in London,*j* who had been an itinerant preach- 
er, to come to them as their minister. This man, however, was "wise in his 
generation ; " and insisted upon having an income of sixty pounds per annum, 
with the chapel-house to live in, settled upon him during his life, before he 
would relinquish his place under Mr. Wesley. What will not party spirit 
do! I was a witness, when, after Mr. Wesley's death, it was found, that the 
preachers continued united and faithful in their calling, how deeply those 
men repented of their conduct in this instance. In vain they represented to 
the man of their unhappy choice, how lamentably their congregations had 
declined, and how hardly they could sustain the expenses they had incurred. 
The answer was short: they might employ other preachers, if they should 
think it proper; but the dwelling-house and the stated income belonged to 
him! ... In that day of uncertainty and surmise, there were not 
wanting some, even among the itinerant preachers, who entertained fears 
respecting a settlement of this kind. They had but little hope that the 
work would continue, after Mr. Wesley's death, as it had during his life; 
and they thought it probable, that the largest Societies and, of course, the 
principal chapels would become independent. . . . Some of the itiner- 
ant preachers brought the charge, at the first Conference after the Deed 
was enrolled, that it was the work of Dr. Coke, who had joined Mr. Wesley 
a few years before. Mr. Wesley only replied to this in the words of Virgil, 
Non vult, non fohiit! " He had neither the will nor the power." 

The truth is: the Conference had requested Mr. Wesley to get such an 
instrument drawn up, as would define or explain what was meant by that 
expression, used in the various deeds of the chapels so settled; viz., "The 
Conference of the People called Methodists;" upon the meaning of 
which terms the authority so appointing must rest, so long as there should 
be an itinerant ministry. The elder Mr. Hampson was particularly earnest 
with Mr. Wesley, to have such an instrument executed without delay. He 
immediatelj r set about it; and having given directions to his solicitor, who 
took the opinion of counsel upon the most proper and effectual way of doing 
it, he committed it chiefly to the care of Dr. Coke, as his own avocations 
would not admit of a constant personal attendance. He, however, wrote, 
with his own hand, a list of a hundred names, which he ordered to be in- 
serted, declaring his full determination that no more should be appointed; 
and as there never had been so great a number at any Conference, and gen- 
erally from twenty to thirty less, the number so fixed would not, it was 

= : ' See the case of Birstal House, pp. 38-42, of this work. 

f Mr. John Atlay, nine years an itinerant preacher, and fif een years book-steward in Lon- 
don: see four letters to him from Mr. Wesley, Works, VII. 331, and the " Case of Dewsbury 
House," which is the chapel referred to in the text, VII. 329, 330. Cf. "A Word to Whom it 
May Concern," VII. 332. 



Wesley r s Final Settlement of English Methodism. 155 



thought, have excited either surprise or displeasure. I can state with the 
fullest certainty, that what Dr. Whitehead has asserted, respecting Mr. Wes- 
ley having repented of this transaction, is totally unfounded. On the con- 
trary, he reviewed it always with high satisfaction; and praised God, who 
had brought him through a business which he had long contemplated with 
earnest desire, and yet with many fears* 

The full title of that famous and important document, the 
" Deed of Declaration," the Magna Chartaof British Meth- 
odism, is " The Rev. John Wesley's Declaration and Estab- 
lishment of the Conference of the People called Metho- 
dists." f According to the Deed itself its object was " to 
explain the words ' Yearly Conference of the People called 
Methodists,' contained in all the said trust deeds, and to de- 
clare what persons are members of the said Conference, and 
how the succession and identity thereof is to be continued." 
The preamble recites the origin, composition, and functions 
of Wesley's Conference, and the nature, object, and condi- 
tions of the trust deeds by which the chapels and other 
property were held for the use of the Methodist preachers, 
with all of which we have previously become familiar. 
The Deed then enumerates the names of one hundred 
preachers, with their addresses, and declares that they 
"being preachers and expounders of God's Holy Word, 
under the care and in connection with the said John Wes- 
ley, have been, now are, and do, on the day of the date 
thereof [Feb. 28, 1784] constitute the members of the said 
Conference, according to the true intent and meaning of the 
said several gifts and conveyances wherein the words, 
* Conference of the people called Methodists,' are mentioned 
and contained; and that the said several persons before 
named, and their successors forever, to be chosen as here- 
after mentioned, are and shall forever be construed, taken, 
and be the Conference of the people called Methodists." 
All this hinged upon prescribed conditions and regulations 
which may be briefly summarized as follows: (1) That 
they and their successors, for the time being forever, shall 
assemble once a year; (2) That the act of the majority 



* Moore's Life of Wesley, II. 295-300. | Whitehead, Life, II. 248 



156 The Grand Climacteric Year: 1784. 

shall be the act of the whole; (3) That their first business, 
when they assemble, shall be to fill up vacancies; (4) That 
no act of the Conference shall be valid unless forty of its 
members are present; (5) That the duration of the yearly 
Conference shall not be less than five days, nor more than 
three weeks; (6) That, immediately after filling up vacan- 
cies, they shall choose a President and Secretary from them- 
selves; (7) That any member of the Conference, absenting 
himself from the yearly assembly for two years successive- 
ly, without the consent of the Conference, and who is not 
present on the first day of the third yearly assembly, shall 
forthwith cease to be a member, as though he were dead; 
(8) That the Conference may expel any member, or any 
person admitted into connection, for any cause which to the 
Conference may seem fit or necessary; (9) That they may 
admit into connection any person, of whom they approve, to 
be a preacher of God's holy word, under direction of the 
Conference; (10) That no person shall be elected a member 
of the Conference, who has not been admitted into the con- 
nection, as a preacher, for twelve months; (11) That the 
Conference shall not appoint any person to the use of chap- 
els, who is not either a member of the Conference, or admit- 
ted into connection with the same, or upon trial; and that no 
person shall be appointed for more than three years succes- 
sively, except ordained ministers of the Church of England ; 
(12) That the Conference may appoint the place of holding 
the yearly assembly at any other town than London, Bristol, 
or Leeds; (13) That the Conference may, when it shall 
seem expedient, send any of its members as delegates to 
Ireland, or other parts out of the kingdom of Great Britain, 
to act on its behalf, and with all the powers of the Confer- 
ence itself; (14) That all resolutions and acts of the Confer- 
ence shall be written in the journals and be signed by the Pres- 
ident and Secretary for the time being; (15) That whenever 
the Conference shall be reduced under the number of forty 
members, and continue so reduced for three years succes- 
sively; or whenever the members shall decline or neglect to 



Wesley's Final Settlement of English Methodism. 157 



meet together annually during the space of three years, the 
Conference of the people called Methodists shall be extin- 
guished, and all its powers, privileges, and advantages shall 
cease; (16) That nothing in this deed shall extinguish or less- 
en the life estate of John and Charles Wesley in any of the 
chapels in which they now have, or may have, any estate or 
interest, power or authority.* 

At the Conference of 1783, the year before the enrollment 
of the Deed, one hundred and ninety-two preachers had 
been given appointments. Twenty-two of these had not vet 
been admitted into full connection. Tyerman thinks it 
would have been prudent to have named the whole of the 
remaining one hundred and seventy in the Deed. Wesley's 
reasons seem to have been conclusive against this. Sixteen, 
however, were selected who had traveled less than four 
years, whereas the following were among the rejected: 
Thomas Lee, who had traveled 36 years: John Atlay, 215 
James Thompson, 25: John Poole, 25; William Ashman, 
19; J. Hern, 15; William Eels, 12; Thomas Mitchell, 36: 
and Joseph Pilmoor, 19. 

Why a man who afterward developed such traits as Atlay, 
the renegade book-steward, and one like our old friend, 
Brother Pilmoor, formerly of the American circuit — after- 
wards the Rev. Dr. Pilmoor. an estimable Protestant Epis- 
copal clergyman of the city of Philadelphia — should have 
been omitted, we can readily understand. Perhaps if we 
were intimately acquainted with the characters and careers 
of the remainder of this corps of ancient worthies we 
could better appreciate the sweet reasonableness of the 
course which Wesley, who knew them well, pursued toward 
them. 

When the delegated General Conference was determined 

* This summary substantially reproduces Tyerman's, Life and Times of 
Weslev, III. 41S, 419. Other summaries maybe found in Whitehead's Life, 
II. 24S-253; Souther's Life, II. 2S4-2S6. The Deed is printed in full in 
Wesley's Works, Amer. ed., IV. 753-759: hi Smith's Hist, of Weslevan 
Meth., Appen. E., I. 731-735; and in Xeely's Governing Conference in 
Methodism, pp. 60-69. 



The Grand Climacteric Tear: 1784. 



on in America a keen and protracted debate turned on 
whether the delegates should be appointed by election or by 
seniority and, at last, the dispute was settled by leaving that 
alternative with the Annual Conferences: as a matter of 
fact no Conference ever appointed its representatives by 
seniority. 

Immediately, John Hampson, Sr., sent forth a printed cir- 
cular, entitled, "An Appeal to the Reverend John and 
Charles Wesley; to all the preachers who act in connection 
with them, and to every member of their respective societies 
in England, Scotland, Ireland, and America." " In this 
document," says George Smith, e< the curious may find all 
the allegations put forth in every agitation of Methodism 
from that time to the present. Here is an alleged great 
breach of faith, an asserted act of injustice and tyranny, 
which is said to have been committed under the influence of 
a favored few; and the complainants are represented as 
persecuted and injured." * 

The Deed of Declaration [continues Dr. Smith] was violently opposed in 
Wesley's time by those preachers who regarded themselves as equal, in re- 
pect of standing and ability, to any of their brethren ; but whose names were 
not inserted by Wesley in the Deed. The mention of this class is a sufficient 
explanation of their objection. 

Besides these, there were others, itinerant and local preachers, who had be- 
come united to Methodist Societies, but who never calculated on the perma- 
nence of the body, or its continued and energetic action as a whole, after 
the death of Wesley. Some of these, it is believed, unfaithful to their prin- 
ciples and calling, looked forward to the death of their founder as a time 
when, by the favor of friendly trustees, they might secure the pulpits of re- 
spectable chapels, and escape from the toil, privations, and dangers of 
itinerancy. 

There were, also, men who believed that Methodism was, in its origin, 
a very good and useful means of rousing a slumbering Church and nation 
to a sense of God and religion; but that, having brought out the sterling 
doctrines of the Reformation from neglect and obscurity, and imbued the 
clergy and the people to some extent with a conviction of their spiritual 
vitality and practical importance, as well as having afforded, in thousands 
of instances, proofs of the experimental and practical godliness which 
they could impart in life and in death, it ought to have retired from the 
scene, and never to have formed a permanent body, but to have left these 
lessons of holy faith and practice for the edification of the Church whence 



* Hist, of Wesleyan Meth., London ed., I. 523, 524. 



Wesley' 's Final Settlement of English Methodism. 159 



the founder of Methodism had been raised. Had this been done, Wesley 
would have been lauded as an apostle by Dr. Southej and many others, who 
have spoken of him in a very different tone. The Deed of Declaration 
alone prevented such a dislocation of the Societies on the death of Wesley. 

For this reason, those persons who deplore the continued existence of 
Methodism as a great and lamentable ecclesiastical irregularity; who be- 
lieve, that on the demise of Wesley, if not before, the Societies which he 
had gathered should have fallen back into the bosom of the National 
Church; naturally look on the Deed of Declaration as the master evil of the 
whole system.* 

As early as April, 1785, Mr. Wesley placed in the hands 
of Joseph Bradford a letter to be delivered to the Confer- 
ence at the first session after his death: 

Chester, April 7, 1785. 

My Dear Brethren: Some of our traveling preachers have expressed a 
fear, that, after my decease, you would exclude them either from preaching 
in connection with you, or from some other privileges which they now en- 
joy. I know no other way to prevent such inconvenience, than to leave 
these my last words with you. 

I beseech you, by the mercies of God, that you never avail yourselves of 
the deed of declaration to assume any superiority over your brethren; but 
let all things go on, among those itinerants who choose to remain together, 
exactly in the same manner as when I was with you, so far as circumstances 
will permit. 

In particular, I beseech you, if you ever loved me, and if you now love 
God and your brethren, to have no respect of persons in stationing the 
preachers, in choosing children for Kingswood school, in disposing of the 
yearly contribution, and the preachers' fund, or any other public money: 
but do all things with a single eye, as I have done from the beginning. 
Go on thus, doing all things without prejudice or partiality, and God will 
be with you even to the end. John Wesley.| 

At the Conference of 1791, the first after Mr. Wesley's 
death, this letter was read, when it was unanimously re- 
solved : 

That all the preachers who are in full connection with them shall enjoy 
every privilege that the members of the Conference enjoy, agreeably to the 
above written letter of our venerable deceased father in the gospel. J 

We conclude our account of the Deed of Declaration and 
take our leave, in this history, of English Methodism, estab- 
lished to this day upon the legal rock which Mr. Wesley, as- 



*Hist. of Wesleyan Meth., London ed., I. 526, 527. 
-j- Wesley's Works, Amer. ed., VII. 310, 311. 
%Ibid., VII. 311, footnote. 



i6o 



The Grand Climacteric Year: 1784. 



sisted by Dr. Coke, quarried for its sufficient foundation, 
with the great Founder's own final defense of his action, 
under date of March 3, 1785: 

In naming these preachers, as I had no adviser, so I had no respect of 
persons; but I simply set down those that, according to the best of my 
judgment, were most proper. But I am not infallible. I might mistake, 
and think better of some of them than they deserved. However, I did my 
best; and if I did wrong it was not the error of my will, but of my judg- 
ment. 

This was the rise and this is the nature of that famous " Deed of Decla- 
ration " — that vile, wicked deed! — concerning which you have heard such 
an outcry. And now, can any one tell me how to mend it, or how it could 
have been made better? " O yes, you might have inserted two hundred, as 
well as one hundred preachers." No, for then the expense of meeting 
would have been double, and all the circuits would have been without 
preachers. "But you might have named other preachers instead of these." 
True, if I had thought as well of them as they did of themselves. But I did 
not; therefore I could do no otherwise than I did, without sinning against 
God and my own conscience. 

" But what need was there for any deed at all?" There was the utmost 
need of it. Without some authentic deed fixing the meaning of the term, 
the moment I died the Conference had been nothing. Therefore any of 
the proprietors of the land on which our preaching-houses were built might 
have seized them for their own use, and there would have been none to hin- 
der them; for the Conference would have been nobody — a mere empty 
name. 

You see, then, in all the pains I have taken about this absolutely neces- 
sary deed I have been laboring, not for myself (I have no interest therein), 
but for the whole body of Methodists, in order to fix them upon such a 
foundation as is likely to stand as long as the sun and moon endure. That 
is, if they continue to walk by faith, and to show forth their faith by their 
works; otherwise I pray God to root out the memorial of them from the 
earth.* 



Thoughts upon Some Late Occurrences," Wesley's Works, VII. 309, 310. 



CHAPTER XI. 



THE CHRISTMAS CONFERENCE AND WESLEY'S FINAL SET- 
TLEMENT OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM. 



AS late as 1805, Asbury, the Apostle of America, soberly 
summing up the elements of his Churchly status, and 
evincing a decent respect for the opinions of the thoughtful 
and virtuous portion of mankind, said: " I will tell the 
world what I rest my authority upon. 1. Divine authority. 
2. Seniority in America. 3. The election of the General 
Conference. 4. My ordination by Thomas Coke, William 
Philip Otterbein, German Presbyterian minister, Richard 
Whatcoat, and Thomas Vasey. 5. Because the signs of an 
apostle have been seen in me." * 

This is a sensible and solid statement by which the 
staunch old Bishop sought to satisfy himself no less than 
the world. In an eminent sense he was the first Bishop of 
American Methodism, though ordained a Superintendent by 
Coke, the ''Foreign Minister of Methodism," who had 
been himself solemnly set apart to the same office by the 
imposition of the hands of Wesley himself. This is the sta- 
ple, then, whence the chain of Methodist Episcopacy is pend- 
ent. Is it sufficient to bear the weight? 

We are now introduced to the transaction, which, esti- 
mated according to any standard, must be pronounced the 
weightiest in Wesley's long and eventful career. He delib- 
erately assumed and exercised the power of ordination, con- 
trary to the canons of the Church of England, of which he 
was a member and a minister. More : he bestowed a third 
ordination upon a co-equal presbyter of the English Church, 
provided him with proper credentials, and sent him to Amer- 
ica empowered and directed to ordain others. As in the 



* Journal, III. 168, May 22, 1805. 
11 (161) 



1 62 The Grand Climacteric Year: 1784.. 



sixteenth century Luther created a new Church for regen- 
erated Germany, so, in a scarcely subordinate sense, Wes- 
ley, in the closing years of the eighteenth, constituted a 
Church providentially adapted to the conditions and needs 
of newly-liberated and sparsely-settled America. 

From the beginning to this good hour, Wesley's conduct 
at this juncture has been fiercely assailed and bitterly mis- 
represented — sometimes ignorantly, sometimes designedly. 
He lost many old friends and made many new enemies, 
when the time was short for appeasing the latter or regain- 
ing the former. 44 1 can scarcely yet believe it," wrote 
Charles, 44 that, in his eighty-second year, my brother, my 
old, intimate friend and companion, should have assumed 
the episcopal character, ordained elders, consecrated a 
bishop, and sent him to ordain our lay preachers in Amer- 
ica ! " * In doggerel and ditty from the pen of his good 
brother f and from that of meaner poets, the venerable 
Founder of the people called Methodists was mercilessly 
lampooned. It was a somewhat more refined, but scarcely 
less cruel, weapon than those employed by the mobs of 
earlier days. Pitifully but firmly the old man pleads with 
his brother, 44 1 walk still by the same rule I have done for 
between forty and fifty years. I do nothing rashly. It is 
not likely I should. The high day of my blood is over. If 
you will go on hand in hand with me, do. But do not hin- 
der me, if you will not help. Perhaps if you had kept close 
to me, I might have done better. However, with or without 
help, I creep on." % Churchmen have endeavored to over- 
lay the simple dignity and apostolic grandeur of Wesley's 
act with forced interpretations of its significance, far-fetched 

* Letter to Dr. Chandler, April 28, 1785. 

-j- Since bishops are so easj made 
By man or woman's whim 
Wesley his hands on Coke has laid 

But who laid hands on him ? — an epigram which 
enlivens the pages of many Churchmen's tracts, otherwise a little prosy, 
and occasionally strays into ponderous tomes. 
% Letter to Charles, Aug. 19, 1785. 



Wesley 's Final Settlement of Episcopal Methodism. 163 



and grotesquely inadequate, impertinently assuming to de- 
clare for Wesley " that he did not design to confer upon 
Coke the character of a Bishop; that Coke's new office was 
designed to be a species of supervisory appointment, vague 
and contingent — something widely different from episcopa- 
cy, however difficult to define; and that, therefore, the dis- 
tinct existence of American Methodism, as an Episcopal 
Church, is a fact contrary to the intentions of Wesley." 
Nor have satire and invective been left to the use of ex- 
ternal foes alone. By those who in England claimed the 
Wesleyan name and in America that of Methodist, in earlier 
and later narratives, which aspire to the character of sober 
history or truthful biography, the grand old man of Metho- 
dism has been stigmatized as inconsistently surrendering 
lifelong principles in a moment of sentimental enthusiasm. 
Or, if his consistency and character are saved, it is at the 
expense of his discretion and sense, since, in the house of 
his friends, are to be found those who play into the hands 
of the prelatists and deliberately declare that his solemn or- 
dination of Coke meant little or nothing, and that he never 
anticipated any important consequences in the organization 
of the American Methodists. But, fortunately, the ancient 
performances of this general type sufficiently reveal their or- 
igin in pique and disappointment, and the modern imitations 
usually betray their design to establish or to defend some 
newly-devised theory of Methodism and its government, 
which would fain root itself in the past, even if false to the 
fathers and the facts.* Poor old Dr. Whitehead, buried 
though he is in the selfsame grave with Wesley, must be al- 
lowed his fling. " Thus we see," he declares in regard to 
Coke's ordination, " that Mr. Wesley's principle and prac- 
tice in this affair directly oppose each other," etc., etc.f 

* " Some read in all this only the pride and ambition of Coke and Asbury. 
The reading is false to the writing of the fathers. For myself, I shall never 
assail the Methodist Episcopacy through such an impeachment of these 
faithful servants of God and Methodism." — Dr. John Miley, Proceedings of 
Centennial Conference, 1884, p. 116. 

•j-Life of Wesley, II. 260. 



164 



The Grand Climacteric Year: 1784.. 



Even Tyerman blots his fair pages by transferring to them 
an anonymous screed which this venomous physician safety 
attributes to " one of the preachers." " Who is the father of 
this monster [ordination!]," asks this unknown itinerant, 
"so long dreaded by the father of his people, and by most 
of his sons? Whoever he be, time will prove him to be a 
felon to Methodism, and discover his assassinating knife 
sticking fast in the vitals of its body. Years to come will 
speak in groans the opprobrious anniversary of our religious 
madness for gowns and bands." * The one hundredth 
"opprobrious anniversary" of this monstrous ordination, 
was fittingly celebrated in the city of Baltimore by the Bish- 
ops and representatives of about four millions of American 
Episcopal Methodists ! So does history revenge itself upon 
those who venture too boldly upon the role of prophecy. 

According to the critics who occupy such standpoints as 
we have been cursorily reviewing, before entering upon a 
detailed examination of the events involved, the driveling 
weakness of a semi-imbecile octogenarian gave unpremedi- 
tated and instantaneous birth to a scheme of ecclesiastical 
government, so solid, so symmetrical — in a word, so suffi- 
cient — that, after the lapse of more than a century, when 
the Churches, whose polity is essentially but a continuation 
or reproduction of this model, number their communicants- 
by the millions, this form of Church government shows no 
sign of fracture or strain but, on the contrary, evinces an 
expansive adaptability to indefinitely increasing demands, 
inferior to no similar solution of the confessedly complex 
problem of civil or ecclesiastical government wrought out 
by the genius of men. The younger Pitt, chancellor of the 
exchequer before he had completed his twenty-third year, 
need not, in his palmiest days, have been ashamed of the 
paternity of a plan of administration so simple, original, 
comprehensive, and, as the event proved, signally and per- 
manently adequate and successful. It is not claimed, accord- 
ing to the example of others, that the pattern was shown to 
* Tyerman, III. 439; Whitehead, II. 257. 



Wesley 's Final Settlement of Episcopal Methodism. 165 



Wesley in the mount; but if wisdom has ever been unmistak- 
ably justified of her children, the deeds of this marvelous oc- 
togenarian may lay claim to that high providential distinction. 

If criticism fails to establish the doting idiocy and irre- 
sponsible second childhood of the man who abridged the 
Articles and Liturgy of the English Church for the use of 
his American children, and penned Coke's letters of epis- 
copal orders and the address to 44 Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, 
and our brethren in North America," it may at least essay 
the easier task of aspersing the characters and motives of 
the advisers by whom he was surrounded. A man who for 
fifty years had proved singularly firm and immovable in his 
convictions and decisions might, in age and feebleness ex- 
treme, become a tool in the hands of ambitious and design- 
ing men, who should at once thwart his judgment and be- 
tray his confidence. That Coke, whom Asbury, who knew 
him well, pronounced 44 the greatest man of the last centu- 
ry," and whose shining track of world-wide evangelism is 
like the flight of the apocalyptic angel, had characteristic 
weaknesses and was guilty of many indiscretions, we have 
no interest in denying. His peculiarities of character laid 
him open to many insinuations and imputations, but his vin- 
dication in this crisis is complete and convincing, as we 
shall see, in some detail, hereafter. 44 But do you not al- 
low," writes Charles to his brother, 44 that the Doctor has 
separated? Do you not know and approve of his avowed 
design and resolution to get all the Methodists of the three 
kingdoms into a distinct, compact body? Have you seen 
his ordination sermon? Is the high day of his blood over? 
Does he do nothing rashly? Have you not made yourself 
the author of all his actions? I need not remind you, qui 
facit per alium facit per se. I must not leave unanswered 
your surprising question, 4 What then are you frighted at?' 
At the Doctor's rashness, and your supporting him in his 
ambitious pursuits," etc.* To which John calmly replied, 
after the official record of the Doctor's acts in America had 



* Letter, Sept. 8, 1785. 



1 66 The Grand Climacteric Tear : 1784. 

been laid before him, " I believe Dr. Coke is as free from 
ambition as from covetousness. [He gave more money to 
religion than any other Methodist, if not any other Protest- 
ant, of his day.] He has done nothing rashly that I 
know."* Fletcher was present at the Leeds Conference 
of 1784, and with his sagacious counsels the American poli- 
cy was determined upon. Coke's reluctance when Wes- 
ley's plan was first broached to him will become evident in 
the sequel. 

If all other sources of impeachment fail, it still remains 
possible, as we have noticed, to deny that Mr. Wesley's acts 
at this crisis possessed any special significance or were in- 
tended by him to produce the results which have actually 
proceeded from them.f The venerable man was partly a 
dupe and partly the hero of a chapter of accidents. The 
imagination of posterity, or the vanity of Methodists, has 
done the rest — has endowed him with statesmanlike presci- 
ence and has attributed to wise design what was the unfore- 
seen but happy result of blind chance. 

It lies beyond the scope of our history to enter into any 
formal refutation of these several theories of how Mr. Wes- 
ley came to ordain a presbyter of the Church of England to 
the office of a Methodist Superintendent and to provide for 
the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
United States. The literature is voluminous and as curious 
as voluminous. Its production has not yet ceased. Happi- 
ly a plain narrative which shall embody all the material facts 
in their proper sequence and relations is likely to lead to but 
one conclusion in candid minds, thus leaving to the office of 
historical construction and interpretation the simple task of 
bringing the multitudinous rays which flash from many and 
unexpected quarters, to a final focus. To this narrative, 
from which the reader has perhaps been too long detained, 
we now proceed. 

* Letter, Sept. 13. 

•j-" Wesley meant the ceremony to be a mere formality likely to recom- 
mend his delegate to the favor of the Methodists in America." Tyerman, 
HI. 434- 



Wesley's Final Settlement of Efiscofal Methodism, 167 



/. Wesley' 's Ordination of Thomas Coke. 
In February, 1784, the month in which the Deed of Dec- 
laration was enrolled in Chancery, Mr. Wesley called Dr. 
Coke into his private chamber in London and introduced 
the subject of providing for the American Methodists in 
nearly the following manner: 

That, as the revolution in America had separated the United States from 
the mother country for ever, and the Episcopal Establishment was utterly 
abolished, the societies had been represented to him in a most deplorable 
condition. That an appeal had also been made to him through Mr. Asbury, 
in which he was requested to provide for them some mode of church gov- 
ernment, suited to their exigencies; and that having long and seriously re- 
volved the subject in his thoughts, he intended to adopt the plan which he 
was now about to unfold. That as he had invariably endeavored, in every 
step he had taken, to keep as closely to the Bible as possible, so, on the pres- 
ent occasion, he hoped he was not about to deviate from it. That, keeping 
his eye upon the conduct of the primitive churches in the ages of unadul- 
terated Christianity, he had much admired the mode of ordaining bishops 
which the church of Alexandria had practiced. That, to preserve its purity, 
that church would never suffer the interference of a foreign bishop in any 
of their ordinations; but that the presbyters of that venerable apostolic 
church, on the death of a bishop, exercised the right of ordaining another 
from their own body, by the laying on of their own hands; and that this 
practice continued among them for two hundred years, till the days of Dio- 
nysius. And finally, that, being himself a presbyter, he wished Dr. Coke to 
accept ordination from his hands, and to proceed in that character to the 
continent of America, to superintend the societies in the United States.* 

Dr. Coke was startled and expressed his doubts. Mr. 
Wesley recommended to his attention the arguments of 
Lord King, which had satisfied his own mind; but still 
nearly two months elapsed before Coke gave a qualified as- 
sent to Wesley's proposal. And here we may briefly re- 
view the process by which Mr. Wesley had reached the 
conclusions which he privately urged upon the notice of 
Dr. Coke. January 20, 1746, nearly forty years before the 
period at which we are now arrived, Wesley set out on a 
journey to Bristol, and read Lord King's " Inquiry into the 
Constitution, Discipline, Unity, and Worship of the Primi- 

* Drew, Life of Coke, pp. 71, 72. Mr. Drew incloses this narrative in 
quotation marks, to intimate, I suppose, that it represents a memorandum or 
dictation of Dr. Coke's, from whom alone it could have originated. 



The Grand Climacteric Tear : 1784. 



tive Church."* The Dissenting Lord High Chancellor's 
argument convinced the High-church clergyman, and, after 
the perusal, he wrote, 44 In spite of the vehement prejudice 
of my education, I was ready to believe that this was a fair 
and impartial draught; but, if so, it would follow that bish- 
ops and presbyters are essentially of one order," etc. Ac- 
cordingly in the Minutes of the Conference of 1747 we find 
the following questions and answers on the subject of Church 
government: 

4>. What instance or ground is there, then, in the New Testament for a 
national Church? A. We know none at all. We apprehend it to be a mere- 
ly political institution. Are the three orders of bishops, priests, and dea- 
cons plainly described in the New Testament? A. We think they are; and 
believe they generally obtained in the Churches of the apostolic age. J^. 
But are you assured, that God designed the same plan should obtain in all 
Churches, throughout all ages? A. We are not assured of this; because we 
do not know that it is asserted in Holy Writ. j^>. If this plan were essential 
to a Christian Church, what must become of all the foreign reformed 
Churches? A. It would follow, that they are no parts of the Church of 
Christ! A consequence full of shocking absurdity. j|>. In what age was 
the Divine right of episcopacy first asserted in England? A. About the 
middle of Queen Elizabeth's reign. Till then all the bishops and clergy in 
England continually allowed, and joined in, the ministrations of those who 
were not episcopally ordained. 

In 1756, Wesley wrote, 44 I still believe 4 the espiscopal 
form of church government to be scriptural and apostol- 
ical.' I mean well agreeing with the practice and writings 
of the apostles; but that it is prescribed in Scripture, I do not 
believe. This opinion, which I once zealously espoused, I 
have been heartily ashamed of, ever since I read Bishop 
Stillingfleet's 4 Irenicon.' I think he has unanswerably 
proved that neither Christ nor his apostles prescribe any 
particular form of Church government ; and that the plea of 
Divine right for diocesan episcopacy was never heard of in 
the primitive Church." t In 1761, he declared that Stilling- 
fleet had convinced him that it 44 was an entire mistake that 
none but episcopal ordination is valid." In 1780, he 
shocked Charles with the claim, 44 I verily believe I have as 



*Amer. Ed., New York, Lane & Scott, 1851. | Works, Amer. ed., VII. 284. 



Wesley 's Final Settlement of Episcopal M ethodism 169 



good a right to ordain as to administer the Lord's Supper." 
And finally, in August, 1785, defending his course in a letter 
to his brother, he writes, " I firmly believe I am a scriptural 
iTtLGzoTtog", as much as any man in England, or in Europe; 
for the uninterrupted succession I know to be a fable, which 
no man ever did or can prove." Here is provided a catena 
of deliverances extending over a period of forty years from 
1746 to 1785 which must forever set at rest the hasty charge 
that under the impulse of excitement or the demands of an 
unexpected emergency the octogenarian Wesley canceled 
his lifelong convictions. 

But the ambitious Coke has not yet consented to the ordi- 
nation. In about two months, as intimated above, he wrote 
acceding to it, though still suggesting delay, or, if possible, 
some modification of the plan. Here is his letter: 

Near Dublin, Afril 17, 1784. 
Honored and very dear Sir : I intended to trouble you no more about my 
going to America; but your observations incline me to address you again 
on the subject. 

If some one, in whom you could place the fullest confidence, and whom 
you think likely to have sufficient influence and prudence and delicacv of 
conduct for the purpose, were to go over and return, you would then have 
a source of sufficient information to determine on any points or proposi- 
tions. I may be destitute of the last mentioned essential qualification (to 
the former I lay claim without reserve) ; otherwise my taking such a voyage 
might be expedient. 

By this means you might have fuller information concerning the state of 
the country and the societies than epistolary correspondence can give you; 
and there might be a cement of union, remaining after your death, between 
the societies and preachers of the two countries. If the awful event of your 
decease should happen before my removal to the world of spirits, it is al- 
most certain, that I should have business enough, of indispensable impor- 
tance, on my hands in these kingdoms. 

I am, dear sir, your most dutiful and most affectionate son, 

Thomas Coke. 

Here the matter rested until the Leeds Conference of 
1784. Pawson relates that ordination was first proposed bv 
Wesley himself in his select committee of consultation. 
Says he: " The preachers were astonished when this was 
mentioned, and, to a man, opposed it. But I plainly saw 
that it would be done, as Mr. Wesley's mind appeared to 



170 The Grand Climacteric Tear: 1784.. 



be quite made up." * And he proved a match for all of 
them. 

Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey were selected for the Amer- 
ican work. Shortly after the close of the Conference, Dr. 
Coke addressed Mr. Wesley the following epistle: 

August 9, 1784. 

Honored and dear Sir : The more maturely I consider the subject, the 
more expedient it appears to me, that the power of ordaining others should 
be received by me from you, by the imposition of your hands; and that you 
should lay your hands on brother Whatcoat and brother Vasey, for the fol- 
lowing reasons: (i) It seems to me the most scriptural way, and most 
agreeable to the practice of the primitive churches. (2) I may want all the 
influence, in America, which you can throw into my scale. Mr. Bracken- 
bury informed me at Leeds, that he saw a letter from Mr. Asbury, in which 
he said that he would not receive any person, deputed by you, with any 
part of the superintendency of the work invested in him ; or words which 
evidently implied so much. I do not find the least degree of prejudice in 
my mind against Mr. Asbury; on the contrary, I find a very great love and 
esteem ; and am determined not to stir a finger without his consent, unless 
necessity obliges me; but rather to be at his feet in all things. But, as the 
journey is long, and you cannot spare me often, it is well to provide against 
all events; and I am satisfied that an authority, formally received from you 
will be fully admitted; and that my exercising the office of ordination, with- 
out that formal authority, may be disputed, and perhaps, on other accounts, 
opposed. I think you have tried me too often to doubt, whether I will, in 
any degree, use the power you are pleased to invest me with, further than 
I believe absolutely necessary for the prosperity of the work. 

In respect of my brethren Whatcoat and Vasey, it is very uncertain 
whether any of the clergy, mentioned by brother Rankin, except Mr. Jar- 
ratt, will stir a step with me in the work; and it is by no means certain, that 
even he will choose to join me in ordaining; and propriety and universal 
practice make it expedient, that I should have two presbyters with me in this 
work. In short, it appears to me, that everything should be prepared, and 
everything proper be done, that can possibly be done, on this side the water. 

You can do all this in Mr. C n's house, in your chamber ; and afterwards, 

(according to Mr. Fletcher's advice,) give us letters testimonial of the differ- 
ent offices with which you have been pleased to invest us. For the purpose 
of laying hands on brothers Whatcoat and Vasey, I can bring Mr. Creighton 
down with me, by which you will have two presbyters with you. 

In respect to brother Rankin's argument, that you will escape a great 
deal of odium by omitting this, it is nothing. Either it will be known, or not 
known. If not known, then no odium will arise; but if known, you will be 
obliged to acknowledge, that I acted under your direction, or suffer me to 
sink under the weight of my enemies, with perhaps your brother at the 
head of them. I shall entreat you to ponder these things. 

Your most dutiful, Thomas Coke. 



*MS. memoir of Whitehead. 



Wesley ' s Final Settlement of Episcopal Methodism . 171 



Whitehead thinks this letter affords materials for observa- 
tions both " serious and comic." Tyerman concludes from 
it that Wesley had never intended ordaining Coke, but, at 
his request, acquiesced. This conclusion, in view of the 
attendant facts, is, as we shall see, unwarranted. But, if it 
were, it is difficult to see how it affects either Coke's char- 
acter or the foundations of Methodist Episcopacy. Wesley, 
whether by persuasion or of his own motion, did ordain Coke 
with the convictions and purposes which have been considered 
at length. But the letter is susceptible of a natural and, it 
might be added, necessary interpretation. Pawson, whose 
testimony at a later date w T hen he was President of the Con- 
ference is decisive of what Wesley intended by Coke's and 
later episcopal ordinations, declared positively, as Mr. Tyer- 
man cites, that, at Conference, Mr. Wesley's select commit- 
tee of consultation were 44 to a man" opposed to the ordi- 
nation project. Yet Mr. Wesley's mind was "quite made 
up " and Mr. Pawson " plainly saw it would be done." It 
was determined in Conference that Coke, Whatcoat, and 
Vasey should go to America. That point being fixed be- 
yond recall, it was of the first importance to Coke in what 
character and with what powers he should go. The oppo- 
sition to the ordinations could not be unknown to him. He 
knew what influences were now at work about his chief. 
While the saintly Fletcher indorsed the step, the returned 
Rankin counseled against it. Where Charles Wesley stood 
everybody knew. Any prudent man could foresee the deli- 
cate position in which the new envoy and joint superintend- 
ent would be placed in relation to Mr. Asbury. He came to 
share his powers and in some respects to assume a superior 
position, as Mr. Wesley's delegate, a clergyman of the 
Church of England, and the organizing officer of the new 
Church. Coke's conduct at this juncture and after his ar- 
rival in America, when Mr. Dickins advised him to carry 
out his mission on Mr. Wesley's authority without consult- 
ing Mr. Asbury, must win our admiration for its obvious 
delicacy and nice sense of propriety. In these transactions, 



172 The Grand Climacteric Year: 1J84.. 



the foreign minister of Methodism showed himself a dip- 
lomat as well as a gentleman and a Christian. 

Dr. Coke's reference to his having seen 66 a letter from 
Mr. Asbury, in which he observed that he would not receive 
any person, deputed by you, with any part of the superin- 
tendency," is perhaps best understood in the light of a letter 
of Asbury' s addressed to Wesley under date of September 
20, 1783: 

No person can manage the lay preachers here so well, it is thought, as 
one that has been at the raising of most of them. No man can make a 
proper change upon paper to send one here and another [there] without 
knowing the circuits and the gifts of all the preachers, unless he is always 
out among them. My dear sir, a matter of the greatest consequence now 
lies before you. If you send preachers to America, let them be proper per- 
sons. We are now united; all things go on well considering the storms and 
difficulties we have had to ride through. I wish men of the greatest under- 
standing would write impartial accounts, for it would be better for us not to 
have preachers than to be divided. This I know, great men that can do 
good, may do hurt if they should take the wrong road. I have labored and 
suffered much to keep the people and preachers together, and if I am 
thought worthy to keep my place I should be willing to labor and suffer till 
death for peace and union. 

At the close of the Leeds Conference of 1784 Mr. Wes- 
ley went to Bristol and Dr. Coke to London, to prepare for 
his voyage to America. While in London he received a 
letter from Wesley asking his immediate presence in Bristol 
and directing him to bring with him the Rev. Mr. Creigh- 
ton, a regularly ordained presbyter of the Church of En- 
gland, who had long officiated in Wesley's London chapels. 
"The Doctor and Mr. Creighton accordingly met him in 
Bristol, when, with their assistance, he ordained Mr. Rich- 
ard Whatcoat and Mr. Thomas Vasey presbyters for Amer- 
ica; and being peculiarly attached to every rite of the 
Church of England, did afterward ordain Dr. Coke a su- 
perintendent, giving him letters of ordination under his hand 
and seal."* Whatcoat, one of the most exact and reliable 
of our primitive sources, in his Journal says: 

September 1, 1784, Rev. John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and James Creigh- 

*Coke and Moore's Life of Wesley, Eng. ed., p. 459. 



Wesley ' s Final Settlement of Efiscofal Methodism . 173 

ton, presbvters of the Church of England, formed a presbytery and or- 
dained Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey deacons. And on September 
2d, bv the same hands, etc., Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey were or- 
dained elders, and Thomas Coke, L.L.D., was ordained superintendent for 
the Church of God under our care in North America. 

On Wednesday, September 1st," says Wesley in his 
Journal, " being now clear in my own mind, I took a step 
which I had long weighed^ and appointed three of our breth- 
ren to go and serve the desolate sheep in America, which I 
verily believe will be much to the glory of God.'*'" Charles 
Wesley was present at the time in Bristol, but he was not in- 
vited to assist in the ordinations. His help was not needed, 
neither was he left in ignorance for the sake of concealment. 
It was well known that he would not cooperate: his brother, 
having decided, resolved to give him no opportunity to op- 
pose and hinder. It proves the clearness and strength of 
Wesley's resolution, rather than hesitancy or doubt. That 
he did not regret the step is evident from the language in- 
serted in the Conference Minutes of 1786: 

Judging this to be a case of necessity, I took a step which, for peace and 
quietness I had refrained from taking many years ; I exercised that power 
which I am fully persuaded the great Shepherd and Bishop of the Church 
has given me. I appointed three of our laborers to go and help them, by 
not only preaching the word of God, but likewise administering the Lord's 
supper, and baptizing their children throughout that vast tract of land. 

Thus on the second of September, 17S4. in the city of 
Bristol, England, the Rev. Thomas Coke, LL.D.. presby- 
ter of the Church of England, was bv John Wesley, Found- 
er of the people called Methodists, assisted by the Revs. 
James Creighton, Richard Whatcoat, and Thomas Vasey, 
ordained by the imposition of his hands the first " superin- 
tendent or bishop of the Methodist societies in America: an 
act of as high propriety and dignity as it was of urgent ne- 
cessity." * The i; letters of episcopal orders," as thev were 
soon after described to be in the discipline of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, delivered by Wesley into the hands of 



* Stevens. Hist, of Meth.. II. 215. 



i74 



The Grand Climacteric Year: 



Coke were couched in these clear, direct, and comprehen- 
sive terms: 

To all to whom these presents shall come, John Wesley, late Fellow of 
Lincoln College in Oxford, Presbyter of the Church of England, sendeth 
greeting. 

Whereas many of the people in the southern provinces of North Amer- 
ica, who desire to continue under my care, and still adhere to the doctrines 
and discipline of the Church of England, are greatly distressed for want of 
ministers to administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, 
according to the usage of the said Church ; and whereas there does not ap- 
pear to be any other way of supplying them with ministers: 

Know all men, that I, John Wesley, think myself to be providentially 
called, at this time, to set apart some persons for the work of the ministry 
in America. And, therefore, under the protection of Almighty God, and 
with a single eye to His glory, I have this day set apart as a superintendent, 
by the imposition of my hands, and prayer, (being assisted by other ordained 
ministers,) Thomas Coke, doctor of civil law, a presbyter of the Church of 
England, and a man whom I judge to be well qualified for that great work. 
And I do hereby recommend him to all whom it may concern, as a fit per- 
son to preside over the flock of Christ. In testimony whereof, I have here- 
unto set my hand and seal, this second day of September, in the year of our 
Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four. John Wesley.* 

How greater formality and decency could have character- 
ized the proceeding it is difficult to conceive. But that the 
new American Superintendent might be fully equipped for 
his weighty mission, Wesley placed in his hands the well- 
known circular letter, a solid and stately document of trans- 
parent simplicity, which might well lie at the base of sacred, 
franchises, civil or ecclesiastical: 

Bristol, September 10, 1784. 
To Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our Brethren in North America. 

By a very uncommon train of providences, many of the provinces of 
North America are totally disjoined from the mother country, and erected 
into independent states. The English government has no authority over 
them, either civil or ecclesiastical, any more than over the states of Holland. 
A civil authority is exercised over them, partly by the congress, partly by 
the provincial assemblies. But no one either exercises or claims any ecclesi- 
astical authority at all. In this peculiar situation, some thousands of the in- 
habitants of these states desire my advice, and, in compliance with their de- 
sire, I have drawn up a little sketch. 



*A facsimile of this ordination parchment of the first Methodist hishop, reproduced for 
presentation at the London Ecumenical of 1881, lies before the writer. The above is a verba- 
tim copy. 



We si ey ' s Fin al Sett I em ent of Ej> iscofal Meth odism. 175 



Lord King's account of the primitive church convinced me, manj years 
ago, that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently have 
the same right to ordain. For many years, I have been importuned, from 
time to time, to exercise this right, by ordaining part of our traveling preach- 
ers. But I have still refused; not only for peace sake, but because I was 
determined, as little as possible, to violate the established order of the na- 
tional church to which I belonged. 

But the case is widely different between England and North America. 
Here there are bishops, who have a legal jurisdiction; in America there are 
none, neither any parish minister; so that, for some hundreds of miles to- 
gether, there is none either to baptize, or to administer the Lord's supper. 
Here, therefore, my scruples are at an end; and I conceive myself at full 
liberty, as I violate no order, and invade no man's rights, by appointing and 
sending laborers into the harvest. 

I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asbury to be 
joint superintendents over our brethren in North America; as also Richard 
Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey, to act as elders among them, by baptizing and 
administering the Lord's supper. And I have prepared a liturgy, little dif- 
fering from that of the Church of England, (I think the best constituted na- 
tional church in the world,) which I advise all the traveling preachers to 
use on the Lord's day, in all the congregations, reading the litany only 
on Wednesdays and Fridays, and praying extempore on all other days. I 
also advise the elders to administer the supper of the Lord, on every Lord's 
day. 

If any one will point out a more rational and scriptural way of feeding 
and guiding these poor sheep in the wilderness, I will gladly embrace it. 
At present, I cannot see any better method than that I have taken. 

It has indeed been proposed to desire the English bishops to ordain part 
of our preachers for America. But to this I object, 1. I desired the bishop 
of London to ordain one, but could not prevail. 2. If they consented, we 
know the slowness of their proceedings; but the matter admits of no delay. 
3. If they would ordain them now, they would expect to govern them. And 
how grievously would this entangle us! 4. As our American brethren are 
now totally disentangled, both from the state and the English hierarchy, we 
dare not entangle them again, either with the one or the other. They are 
now at full liberty, simply to follow the Scriptures and the primitive church. 
And we judge it best that they should stand fast in that liberty wherewith 
God has so strangely made them free. John Wesley. 

Thus empowered, Superintendent Coke and his attend- 
ant presbyters set sail for America, September 18. All things 
were now ready. Soon we shall join them with Asbury and 
the American itinerants at Baltimore in the Christmas Con- 
ference. But first let us briefly consider Mr. Wesley's other 
ordinations. 



176 The Grand Climacteric Year : 1784.. 



II. Mr. Wesley's Ordinations for Scotland and England. 

These Scotch and English ordinations do not directly con- 
cern our theme, except as they conclusively establish, all 
contemporary rumors and gossip to the contrary notwithstand- 
ing, that Wesley had now deliberately entered upon a course 
of conduct which he unregretfully and undeviatingly pur- 
sued to the end of his life. A little less than a year after 
Coke's ordination, Wesley ordained three ministers for 
Scotland. He gives us this account in his Journal: " 1785: 
August 1. — Having, with a few select friends, weighed the 
matter thoroughly, I yielded to their judgment, and set apart 
three of our well-tried preachers, John Pawson, Thomas 
Hanby, and Joseph Taylor, to minister in Scotland.' 1 
These ordinations occurred during the session of the Confer- 
ence, which adjourned August 3. 44 Our peaceful Confer- 
ence ended," says Wesley, " the God of power having pre- 
sided over all our consultations." * At the Conference of 
1786 Wesley ordained Joshua Keighley and Charles Atmore 
for Scotland ; William Warrener for Antigua ; and William 
Hammett for Newfoundland. In 1787, Tyerman states, five 
others were ordained, whose names he does not mention. 
In 1788, while Wesley was traveling in Scotland, he or- 
dained John Barber and Joseph Cownley, and " at the en- 
suing Conference, seven others, including Alexander Ma- 
ther, who was ordained to the office, not only of deacon and 
elder, but of superintendent.'" t If Wesley hesitatingly be- 
stowed on Coke at his earnest solicitation a nondescript 
third ordination which meant little more than a paternal 
blessing; and if he regarded himself as really incapable of 
bestowing anything more than presbyterial orders, as some 
maintain, it is quite impossible to understand what the good 
man meant by bestowing the orders of deacon, elder, and 
superintendent upon Mather by three successive impositions 
of hands. But such conduct agrees exactly with his direct- 
ing Coke to bestow three ordinations upon Asbury, and his 
inserting the three ordination forms of the English Church 



^Journal, Amer. ed., II. 622. fill. 441. 



Wesley 's Final Settlement of Episcopal Methodism. 177 



in the first prayer-book of American Methodism. Was not 
the man who did these things still an Episcopalian ? * Does 
not such an act as the threefold ordination of Mather when 
Wesley was eighty-five years old, just three years before his 
death, look as if he meant to organize and perpetuate an 
Episcopal Church in England as well as in America? Or, 
at least, to give his followers the means of readily so doing 
after his death? In 1789 Wesley ordained Henry Moore 
and Thomas Rankin, they with Mather being designed for 
service in England. Thus, when Wesley departed this life, 
he left in England a Superintendent and at least two pres- 
byters of the most eminent station and character — Mather 
was elected President of the second Conference after Wes- 
ley's death (1792) and Moore served twice in that capacity 
(in 1804 and 1823) — from whom the ultra-conservative and 
divided English, if they would, might have originated a 
British Church fashioned after Wesley's American modeL 
We begin to see light, now, on some of Charles Wesley's 
fears and accusations. " When once you began ordaining 
in America," he writes, " I knew and you knew that your 
preachers here would never rest till you ordained them. 
You told me they would separate by and by. The Doctor 
tells us the same. His Methodist Episcopal Church in 
Baltimore was intended to beget a Methodist Episcopal 
Church here. You know he comes, armed with your au- 
thority, to make us all Dissenters. One of your sons as- 
sured me that not a preacher in London would refuse orders 
from the Doctor/' f In his reply of five days later John en- 
tered no denial or demurrer to any of these radical accusa- 
tions. Tyerman quotes a brief passage from a letter of 
John Pawson's, written in 1793 while he was President of 

* Certain objectors seem never to tire of the argument that since Wesley 
held that bishops and presbyters are of the same order, he therefore be- 
lieved that a presbyter is a bishop, and a bishop is a presbyter, despite his 
bestowing a third ordination "On presbyters. Such reasoning has the same 
logical value as concluding that because a tiger and a cat are of the same or- 
der, therefore a tiger is a cat and a cat is a tiger. 

t Letter of Aug. 14, 1785. 
12 



178 



The Grand Climacteric Tear : 1784. 



the Conference, but places it in connections which tend to 
break the force of the small section he cites.* It will be 
well to consider the whole: 

It will by no means answer our ends to dispute one with another as to 
which is the most scriptural form of Church government. We should con- 
sider our present circumstances, and endeavor to agree upon some method 
by which our people may have the ordinances of God, and, at the same 
time, be preserved from division. I care not a rush whether it be Episcopal 
or Presbyterian; I believe neither of them to be purely scriptural. But our 
preachers and people in general are prejudiced against the latter; conse- 
quently, if the former will answer our end, we ought to embrace it. In- 
deed, I believe it will suit our present plan far better than the other. The 
design of Mr. Wesley will weigh much with many, which now evidently 
appears to have been this: He foresaw that the Methodists would, after his 
death, soon become a distinct people; he was deeply prejudiced against a 
Presbyterian, and was as much in favor of an Episcopal form of government. 
In order, therefore, to preserve all that was valuable in the Church of En- 
gland among the Methodists, he ordained Mr. Mather and Dr. Coke bish- 
ops. These he undoubtedly designed should ordain others. Mr. Mather 
told us so at the Manchester Conference, but we did not then understand 
him. I see no way of coming to any good settlement but on the plan I 
mentioned before. I sincerely wish that Dr. Coke and Mr. Mather may be 
allowed to be what they are, bishops. We must have ordination among us 
at any rate.f 

Rev. Dr. James Dixon, President of the Wesleyan Con- 
ference in 1841, did not hesitate to declare in a sermon 
preached before the Conference that " the constitution of 
the American Methodist Episcopal Church is only a legiti- 
mate development of the principle [of Wesley's ordinations] ; 
and, it may be added, that an imitation of that great trans- 
action in this country would be perfectly justifiable on the 
ground assumed by Mr. Wesley himself, and held sacred by 
his followers." J In another connection, the same author- 
ity says, 44 If we mistake not, it is to the American Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church that we are to look for the real mind 
and sentiments of this great man." § So President Pawson 

*Life, III. 443. 

f Smith, Hist, of Wesleyan Meth., II. 3, 4. 

J Methodism in its Origin, Economy, and Present Position, N. Y., Lane 
and Scott, 1848, pp. 221, 222. 
%Ibid., p. 248. 



Wesley's Final Settlement of Efiscofal Methodism. 179 



thought in 1791 and, says Stevens, 44 some of the most com- 
manding members of the Conference concurred with him, 
and received his suggestion as the most likely solution of 
their formidable difficulties." 

This leads to an easy and natural explanation of one of 
the most serious charges of 44 ambition," against Bishop 
Coke, with which this section of our narrative may fitly 
close. 4 4 In 1784, he secretly summoned a meeting at 
Litchfield of the most influential of the English preachers 
and passed a resolution that the Conference should appoint 
an order of bishops, to ordain deacons and elders, he him- 
self, of course, expecting to be a member of the prelatical 
brotherhood." * It was the year of Pawson's proposal of 
Episcopacy and of the widespread agitations of Alexander 
Kilham, who stigmatized the Litchfield meeting as 44 a con- 
spiracy to place pretentious prelates over the people." 
President Pawson, Superintendents Coke and Mather, Dr. 
Adam Clarke, Henry Moore, Bradburn, Taylor, and Rog- 
ers were present at the meeting — an eminently weighty and 
respectable company, entitled by every token to take meas- 
ures for the relief of the distractions of Zion. Coke ad- 
dressed the assembly and enlarged upon the prosperity of 
Episcopal Methodism in America, and the relief which 
Wesley's plan had given in a similar sacramental controver- 
sy there. All present had been ordained by Wesley, save 
Dr. Clarke, Bradburn, and Rogers. Coke suggested the 
rational and scriptural plan of originating from among 
themselves a Wesleyan ministry in three orders — as, no 
doubt, Mr. Wesley, as Pawson had suggested, had intend- 
ed they should do. 

Most of the meeting approved his proposition; but Moore very wiselv 
suggested that they should confine their proceedings to the discussion of its 
practicability, and defer its decision to the next Conference. He, however, 
pronounced the measure a scriptural and suitable expedient for the govern- 
ment of any Christian Church. Mather concurred with Moore. They ad- 
journed after adopting a series of resolutions which were to be submitted 
with all their signatures to the Annual Conference. They proposed " an 



:|: Tyerman, III. 434. 



i8o 



The Grand Climacteric Tear : 1J84.. 



order of superintendents," to be annually chosen "if necessary;" the ordi- 
nation of the preachers as deacons and elders; the division of the Connec- 
tion into seven or eight districts, each to be under the care of one of the su- 
perintendents who should have power to call in the assistance of the Presi- 
dent in any exigency. They all agreed to "recommend and support" this 
scheme in the Conference as "a thing greatly wanted, and likely to be of 
much advantage to the work of God."* 

The excitement of the times, the negotiations pending be- 
tween the Conference and the body of delegated trustees, 
etc., were unfavorable to calm consideration and the wisest 
action; consequently the Litchfield resolutions were voted 
down. Otherwise such a body of united, weighty, and de- 
termined men ought to have carried their plan through. 
So nearly did English Methodism come to the adoption of 
the Episcopal form of Church government. 

III. Mr. Asbury and the Calling of the Christmas Con- 
ference. 

Superintendent Coke and Presbyters Whatcoat and Vasey 
landed at New York, November 3, 1784. Dr. Coke imme- 
diately revealed his character and mission to John Dickins, 
the preacher stationed in that city. In his Journal, under 
the date of his landing, he says : 

I have opened Mr. Wesley's plan to Brother Dickins, the traveling 
preacher stationed at this place, and he highly approves of it; says that all 
the preachers most earnestly long for such a regulation, and that Mr. As- 
bury he is sure will agree to it. He presses me most earnestly to make it 
public, because, as he most justly argues, Mr. Wesley has determined the 
point, and therefore it is not to be investigated, but complied with. 

So the entry reads in the London edition of " extracts" 
from Coke's Journals (1793); in the original Journal print- 
ed in the Philadelphia Arminian Magazine (1789), the ital- 
icized words quoted above are replaced by these: "though 
Mr. Asbury is most respectfully to be consulted in respect ta 
every -part of the execution of it." This accurately repre- 
sents what Coke actually did, and doubtless insisted on in 
his first interview with Dickins, whose advice, it will be 

* Stevens, Hist, of Meth., III. 52, 53. The resolutions, bearing the signa- 
ture of Adam Clarke, are printed in Smith's Hist, of Wesleyan Meth., II. Ap- 
pendix 9. 



Wesley 's Final Settlement of Efiscojxxl Methodism, 181 



seen, was not followed. On the night of his arrival, Coke 
preached his first sermon in America in John Street chapel. 
The third day he set out for Philadelphia, arriving on Satur- 
day evening. Sunday morning the Methodist Superintend- 
ent filled the pulpit of Dr. McGaw, (a clergyman mentioned 
by Asbury as friendly to the Methodists) at St. Paul's Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church — or, rather, what soon afterwards 
became such, as that eminently respectable denomination of 
Christians had not yet been organized in America. In the 
evening he preached at St. George's, the Methodist cathe- 
dral, where Rankin had held the first Conference more than 
eleven years before. Drs. McGaw and White — the latter 
afterward the first Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in Pennsylvania— called to see him Monday, and 
Dr. White tendered him the use of his church for the fol- 
lowing Sunday, which, however, he was obliged to decline. 
On Friday, November 12, Coke preached at the " Cross 
Roads " in Delaware, and the next day was received by Mr. 
Richard Bassett, a member of the executive council of the 
state, and afterward of the convention which framed the 
constitution of the United States, and governor of Delaware, 
who, though not a member of the Methodist Society, was, 
like the Capernaum centurion, erecting a large chapel at his 
own expense. Here he met Freeborn Garrettson whom he 
describes as " all meekness, love, and activity." 6i On Sun- 
day, the fourteenth of November, the day on which a bishop 
for Connecticut [Samuel Seabury] was consecrated at Aber- 
deen, [by Scotch non-juring prelates] he preached in a chap- 
el in the midst of a forest to a noble congregation." * Of 
this meeting Dr. Coke writes: 

After the sermon a plain, robust man came up to me in the pulpit and 
kissed me. I thought it could be no other than Mr. Asbury, and I was not 
deceived. I administered the saci'ament, after preaching, to five or six 
hundred communicants, and held a love-feast. It was the best season I 



* George Bancroft, Hist, of United States, Author's Last Revision, 1886, VI. 162. On pages 
160-164, Mr. Bancroft gives a vivid and, as to facts, entirely accurate account of the origin 
of the "new Episcopal Church." He misconstrues Wesley's motives, however, when he says 
he "resolved to get the start of the English hierarchy." How long he had waited, we have 
seen. 



182 



The Grand Climacteric Year: 178/}.. 



ever knew, except one at Charlemont in Ireland. After dinner Mr. Asbury 
and I had a private conversation on the future management of our affairs 
in America. He informed me that he had received some intimations of my 
arrival on the continent, and had collected a considerable number of the 
preachers to form a council, and if they were of opinion that it would be ex- 
pedient immediately to call a Conference, it should be done. They were 
accordingly sent for, and, after debate, were unanimously of that opinion. 
We therefore sent off Freeborn Garrettson, like an arrow, from north to 
south, directing him to send messengers to the right and left, and to gather 
all the preachers together at Baltimore on Christmas eve. Mr. Asbury has 
also drawn up for me a route of about a thousand miles in the meantime. 
He has given me his black, (Harry by name,) and borrowed an excellent 
horse for me. I exceedingly reverence Mr. Asbury; he has so much wis- 
dom and consideration, so much meekness and love; and under all this, 
though hardly to be perceived, so much command and authority. He and I 
have agreed to use our joint endeavors to establish a school or college. I 
baptized here thirty or forty infants, and seven adults. 

An eye-witness gives a most affecting account of this 
first meeting of American Methodism's first Bishops: 

It was in full view of a large concourse of people — a crowded congrega- 
tion, assembled for pubhx worship. While Dr. Coke was preaching, Mr. 
Asbury came into the congregation. A solemn pause and deep silence took 
place at the close of the sermon, as an interval for introduction and saluta- 
tion. Asbury and Coke, with great solemnity and much dignified sensibil- 
ity, and with full hearts of brotherly love, approached, embraced, and salut- 
ed each other. The other preachers, at the same time participating in the 
tender sensibilities of the affectionate salutations, were melted into sweet 
sympathy and tears. The congregation also caught the glowing emotion, 
and the whole assembly, as if divinely struck with a shock of heavenly elec- 
tricity, burst into a flood of tears* 

Asbury says in his Journal : 

Sunday 15. [14] I came to Barratt's chapel; here, to my great joy, I met 
those dear men of God, Dr. Coke, and Richard Whatcoat; we were greatly 
comforted together. The Doctor preached on " Christ our wisdom, right- 
eousness, sanctification, and redemption." Having had no opportunity of 
conversing with them before public worship, I was greatly surprised to see 
brother Whatcoat assist by taking the cup in the administration of the sac- 
rament. I was shocked when first informed of the intention of these my 
brethren in coming to this country : it may be of God. My answer then was, 
if the preachers unanimously choose me, I shall not act in the capacity I 
have hitherto done by Mr. Wesley's appointment. The design of organizing 
the Methodists into an Independent Episcopal Church was opened to the 
preachers present, and it was agreed to call a general conference, to meet at 
Baltimore the ensuing Christmas; as also that brother Garrettson go off to 
Virginia to give notice thereof to our brethren in the South. + 

= :: Ezekiel Cooper in his Funeral Discourse for Asbury. f I. 376. 



Wesley's Final Settlement of Episcopal Methodism. 183 



Coke's account closely agrees with Asbury's and similar- 
ly indicates some doubt and hesitation on Asbury's part. 
He says: "After dining, in company with eleven of the 
preachers, at our sister Barratt's, about a mile from the 
chapel, I privately opened our plan to Mr. Asbury. He ex- 
pressed considerable doubts concerning it, which I rather ap- 
plaud than otherwise." * 

When we correlate the antecedent history in both England 
and America with the circumstances in which Asbury and 
the American Methodists were now placed, and duly ponder 
the character in which Mr. Wesley had sent Dr. Coke and 
the declared aims of his mission, it is not surprising that the 
American General Assistant was "shocked" when he 
learned the ministerial standing of Coke, Whatcoat, and 
Vasey, and declared 4 4 if the preachers unanimously choose 
me, I shall not act in the capacity I have hitherto done, by 
Mr. Wesley's appointment." He had hitherto acted in the 
capacity of sole Captain-general of the American itinerants 
and Societies. He did not propose the instant surrender of 
this position to a stranger. For years he had exercised the 
functions of a General Superintendent, save those of ordina- 
tion and the administration of the sacraments. If these addi- 
tional powers were now to be conferred upon him, he intend- 
ed that his new position should be based upon the consent of 
the preachers and not alone upon the jurisdiction of Mr. 
Wesley, extended to America in the person of his envoy. 
We have seen how Mr. Asbury was first recognized as Gen- 
eral Assistant by the irregular Delaware Conference of 1779, 
after the retirement of Mr. Rankin and the other English 
preachers, and after William Watters had presided at the Con- 
ference of 1 778. After the reunion of the Northern and South- 
ern Conferences, he was again unanimously chos.en in 1782 to 
e< preside over the American Conferences and the whole 
work," it being added, however, that this was 44 according 
to Mr. Wesley's original appointment." During Rankin's 
administration, it will be remembered, the differences be- 

* Philadelphia Arminian Magazine, 1789, pp. 243, 244. 

I 



184 



The Grand Climacteric Year: 1784.. 



tween him and Asbury had become so serious, that Mr. 
Wesley ordered the latter' s return to England. But during 
the revolutionary war Mr. Wesley's control of the Ameri- 
cans had been cut off, and thus Asbury's leadership had be- 
come thoroughly established on the basis of the unanimous 
consent of the preachers. Wesley's letter which Asbury 
received on Chrismas eve, 1783, exactly one year before 
the Christmas Conference, was not so much an appointment 
to the office of General Assistant as it was an authoritative 
recognition of Asbury's rightful occupancy of that position. 
He could not easily surrender the advantages of this unique 
relation which he sustained to the preachers and the 
work. Hence his proposal to call a Conference, which was 
neither suggested by Coke nor contemplated by Wesley. 

Of course, Wesley was aware that the Americans had been 
holding an Annual Conference since 1773. Rankin (1773— 
1777), Waters (1778), Asbury (1779-1784) had been the 
presidents. Rankin had used the same presidential powers 
which Wesley did in England. When Asbury was recog- 
nized in 1779, it had been expressly provided that " on hear- 
ing every preacher for and against what is in debate, the 
right of determination shall rest with him according to the 
minutes." That a Conference of these limited powers 
might be assembled, if convenient, to which certain privi- 
leges might be accorded by Coke and Asbury, as Wesley 
increasingly did in England,* Wesley doubtless supposed 
was not improbable. But Asbury's aim, in deciding on a 
Conference of all the preachers, in that initial interview 
at Barratt's chapel, was something quite different. Of course 
he did not propose, as an ordained Superintendent, to hand 
over to the Conference all those powers which he had 
freely exercised in the presidential chair and elsewhere 

* " From the beginning he was the center and seat of all power and 
authority; and although, as time advanced, he gradually, and almost imper- 
ceptibly, devolved nearly the whole administrative government of the So- 
cieties on the Conference and the Assistants, still all matters of peculiar diffi- 
culty were carried to him, and from his judgment there was no appeal." 
(Smith's Hist, of Wesleyan Meth., I. 513.) 



Wesley 's Final Settlement of Episcopal Methodism. 185 



when he was simply an elected General Assistant. Down to 
1792, he did many things, as his revision and rearrangement 
of the Discipline in 1787 and his developing and enlarging 
the office of presiding elder, which had not been authorized 
by Conference action. But he did mean by placing the 
election of the Conference behind his new position to inter- 
pose a sufficient authority between himself and Mr. Wesley. 
The Christmas Conference of 17S4 is not properly the be- 
ginning of the government of the Church by the General 
Conference, though it exercised larger powers than had ever 
before been accorded an American Conference. It conveys 
an erroneous impression to call it a General Conference, if 
the associations of later years are allowed to cluster around 
the name. It was general only in the sense that it was in- 
tended to be an assembly of all the American itinerants, and 
that it did determine by majority vote the fate of the meas- 
ures submitted to it. But in it there was not a single deacon 
or elder. Ministerial orders came to it from Mr. Wesley 
through Dr. Coke. It was a mass convention of young itin- 
erants called to assist in organizing a Church. The body did 
not provide for any successor or any future session. When it 
adjourned it dissolved. It no longer possessed either actual 
or potential existence, except as the several Annual Confer- 
ences increasingly, but still not universally, exercised legisla- 
tive powers. Nobody could tell when, if at all, another such 
general body would be convened. Not until eight years la- 
ter, in 1792, did another general assembly meet. In the 
meantime, just because of the felt want, of which the Gen- 
eral Conference proper was the final solution, was the disas- 
trous experiment of the Council attempted. Nevertheless 
Mr. Asbury's proposal was the germ of General Confer- 
ence government. The situation of the Americans during 
the war had brought about his own designation to office 
by election of the preachers. He now followed up that 
precedent, and interposed the Conference as an effectual 
barrier against the supremacy of Mr. Wesley. 

It must be held in mind that this year 1784 is the date of 



1 86 The Grand Climacteric Year: 1784.. 

the full empowering of the English Conference by the Deed 
of Declaration. As English Methodism was given a definite, 
legal status by a clear and rigid constitution framed for the 
Conference, it seems to some writers all the more incompre- 
hensible that a Conference should not have been the chief 
feature in Wesley's organization of Episcopal Methodism on 
this side the water. The absence of provision for a Confer- 
ence has created so urgent a doubt in the minds of a few 
chroniclers that they have ventured in late years to maintain 
that Mr. Wesley did not intend the organization of what 
Asbury, in his account of his first interview with Coke, 
styles an " Independent Episcopal Church," independent, 
that is, of the Church of England, or its languishing remains 
in the States. That Coke, Asbury, and the Christmas Con- 
ference so understood, and accordingly executed, the de- 
signs of the Founder is not disputed, or, indeed, disputable. 
But this proceeding is attributed to excess of zeal and the 
overweening ambition of Coke, who transcended his powers 
and overleaped the modest designs of Wesley. It cannot be 
denied that Wesley constituted a ministry in three grades or 
orders; that he abridged the thirty-nine articles to constitute 
a doctrinal basis for the new organization; that from the 
English Book of Common Prayer he framed a liturgy for 
public worship ; and that he embodied these provisions in a 
work entrusted to Coke's custody entitled, "The Sunday 
Service of the Methodists in North America, with other 
Occasional Services; London: Printed in the year 1784," 
which contained a form of public prayer, " The Form and 
Manner of Making and Ordaining of Superintendents, Eld- 
ers, and Deacons," and ' ' The Articles of Religion." 
Thus the three-fold ministry and the organization itself 
were evidently intended to be permanent. Else these pro- 
visions for their perpetuity had been irrelevant and unneces- 
sary. This Episcopal regimen was expressly justified on the 
ground that in America there were now neither bishops nor 
parish ministers ; that if the English bishops could at last be 
induced to ordain for the Methodists of America, "they 



Wesley 's Final Settlement of Efiscofal Methodism. 187 



would likewise expect to govern them, and how grievously 
would this entangle us; " and that, since 44 our American 
brethren are now totally disentangled both from the State and 
from the English hierarchy, we dare not entangle them again 
either with the one or the other." * 44 No extant forensic ar- 
gument" says Stevens, 44 founded upon documentary evi- 
dence, is stronger than would be a right collocation of the 
evidence which sustains the claim of iVmerican Methodists 
respecting this question. . . . Presented in their right 
series they become absolutely decisive, and must conclude 
the controversy with all candid minds. "t 

A comprehensive survey will sufficiently explain Wesley's 
failure to provide, in this Independent Episcopal Church, 
for a governing body such as some years afterward the 
General Conference became. Unfortunately the survey has 
hitherto been made, either by English writers who encoun- 
tered on one side of the Atlantic the anomaly of a Confer- 
ence, or supreme ecclesiastical synod, without an ordained 
ministry, or by American writers who, on this side the 
Atlantic, encountered the difficulties of the contrary anom- 
aly of a Church with an ordained ministry in three orders, 
for which no controlling Conference was provided. The 
writer of these lines trusts he may be pardoned for suggest- 
ing that after a familiar and extensive acquaintance with the 
literature of the question in both England and America, he 
has perused no author who has generalized his solution of 
the manifest difficulties involved, from the combined ele- 
ments afforded equally by the English and the American 
constitutions. Was Wesley responsible for this fractional 
or truncated organization in either case? Let us see. 

The evidence is conclusive that nothing lay nearer Wes- 
ley's heart than the continued union of Methodists through- 
out the world after his decease. He did not intend the sep- 
aration of the American and English Methodists into two 

* Wesley's Circular Letter, presented by Dr. Coke to the Christmas Con- 
ference as the basis of its action. 
•J- Hist, of Meth., II. 217. 



i88 



The Grand Climacteric Tear : 1784. 



communions, one under the government of Bishops and the 
other under that of the Conference. Among the first regu- 
lations adopted by the Christmas Conference was this: 

During the life of the Rev. Mr. Wesley, we acknowledge ourselves his 
sons in the gospel, ready in matters belonging to Church government to 
obey his commands. And we do engage, after his death, to do everything 
that we judge consistent with the cause of religion in America and the po- 
litical interests of these States, to preserve and promote our union with the 
Methodists in Europe * 

This stood until 1787. Mr. Wesley regarded this as no 
empty compliment. September 6, 1786, he wrote to Dr. 
Coke, " I desire that you would appoint a General Confer- 
ence of our preachers in the United States to meet at Balti- 
more on May 1, 1787, and that Mr. Whatcoat maybe appoint- 
ed Superintendent with Mr. Asbury." Such a General Con- 
ference did not assemble, and Mr. Whatcoat did not become 
a Superintendent until thirteen years later (1800) when he 
was chosen by the free suffrages of the American itinerants. 
On the contrary, the resolution of submission to Mr. Wes- 
ley was expunged, much to his grief. It is enough here to 
cite from Mr. Wesley's letter to Whatcoat sufficient proof 
of his desire for continued union between the American and 
English Methodists. 

It was not well judged of Brother Asbury [said he] to suffer, much less 
indirectly encourage, the foolish step in the last Conference. Every 
preacher present ought, both in duty and in prudence, to have said, " Broth- 
er Asbury, Mr. Wesley is your father, consequently ours." Candor will 
affirm this in the face of the world. It is highly probable that disallowing 
me will, as soon as my head is laid, occasion a total breach between the Eng- 
lish and American Methodists. They will naturally say, " If they can do 
without us, we can do without them." 

Thus, it is seen, the Conference, under Asbury's suffer- 
ance, exercised powers which Wesley had never intended 
should fall within its province. The beginning of this was 
in his own election to the Superintendency ; its continuation 
in the rejection of Whatcoat, as Wesley's nominee, for the 
same office. 

Reverting to the Deed of Declaration, we find the follow- 

o 



*Dr. Emory's Hist, of the Discipline, pp. 26, 27. 



Wesley f s Final Settlement of Efiscofal Methodism, 189 



ing provision for the extension of the supervision and pow- 
ers of the Conference beyond the limits of Great Britain: 

Thirteenth. And for the convenience of the chapels and premises al- 
ready, or which may hereafter be given or conveyed upon the trusts afore- 
said, situate i?i Ireland or other farts out of the Kingdom of Great Britain, the 
Conference shall and may, when and as often as it shall seem expedient, 
but not otherwise, appoint and delegate any member or members of the 
Conference with all or any of the powers, privileges, and advantages, herein 
before contained or vested in the Conference ; and all and every the acts, 
admissions, expulsions, and appointments whatsoever o£ such member or 
members of the Conference, so appointed and delegated as aforesaid, the 
same being put into writing and signed by such delegate or delegates, and 
entered into the Journals or Minutes of the Conference, and subscribed as 
after mentioned, shall be deemed, taken, and be the acts, admissions, expul- 
sions, and appointments of the Conference to all intents, constructions, and 
purposes whatsoever, from the respective times when the same shall be 
done by such delegate or delegates, notwithstanding anything herein con- 
tained to the contrary. 

It will be remembered that Dr. Coke presided in the first 
Irish Conference of 1782, and, until he prepared to visit 
India, on the voyage to which he died, he almost invariably 
presided in Ireland, 44 thus filling the presidential chair with 
honor, approbation , and great utility for nearly thirty years ." * 
After Mr. Wesley's death this appointment was made by 
virtue of the above-cited regulation incorporated in the 
Deed of Declaration. In 1805 the Irish Conference, for ex- 
ample, took this action: 44 Your readiness of mind to com- 
ply with our request, so often made, for our greatly respected 
friend and brother, Dr. Coke, convinces us still more and 
more of your affection toward us. We do, therefore, with 
confidence, unanimously request that he may be appointed 
our president the ensuing year." To which the English 
Conference responded: 4 4 In compliance with your request, 
we appoint the Rev. Dr. Coke to be the president of the next 
Irish Conference, to be held in Dublin on the first Friday 
in July, 1806." 

We now begin to see how Wesley expected to maintain a 
bond of union among the Methodists throughout the world 
after his decease. It is intelligible why, in organizing Amer- 



*Drew, Life of Coke, p. 51. 



190 The Grand Climacteric Tear : 1784. 



ican Methodism into an Episcopal Church, he did not provide 
for a supreme General Conference, since he had deliber- 
ately adopted measures by which the authority of the British 
Conference might be extended to any part of the world. If 
the central Conference extended in its oversight and govern- 
ment to America, so that the Americans were not really 
without Conference government, it is just as true that the 
English Methodists were not left without an ordained min- 
istry, and that in three orders. If any question be raised 
about Coke's being a Bishop among the Wesleyans — 
though President Pawson, as we have seen, did not doubt it 
in 1793 — there can be none about Alexander Mather's po- 
sition, thrice ordained by Wesley, and himself the second 
President of the Conference, in 1792. The reader will now 
perceive why large space in this history has been devoted to 
Wesley's ordinations for England and Scotland, subsequent 
to his ordination of Coke, Whatcoat, and Vasey. We see 
why Charles Wesley charged, and John Wesley did not 
deny, that Dr. Coke's Methodist Episcopal Church in Amer- 
ica was designed to beget a like Methodist Episcopal 
Church in England. Biographer after biographer and his- 
torian after historian have treated this language as the vain 
ravings of an outraged opponent. When light is thrown 
into it from all directions — from the transactions in England 
and from the events in America — it is seen to be a sober 
representation of John Wesley's intentions, or, at least, of 
the results, which he believed would naturally, if not necessa- 
rily, flow from his actions after his decease: hence Pawson's 
letter; hence the Litchfield meeting, and the deliberate pro- 
posals of Coke, Mather, Pawson, Adam Clarke, Henry 
Moore, Samuel Radburn, Rogers and Taylor. Until we 
bring together the American and English elements of the 
situation, it seems inexplicable that the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in America entered on its great career with an or- 
dained ministry but without a General Conference, and that 
English Methodism, on the death of Wesley, began with 
fully organized Conference government, but without an or- 



Wesley 's Final Settlement of Efiscofal Methodism. 191 



dained ministry, the imposition of hands by the President, 
Ex-president, and Secretary beginning as late as 1834. 
American Methodism, in the year after Wesley's death 
(1792) secured to itself the first General Conference prop- 
erly so called. Such full and final assertion of independence 
was hardly possible at any earlier date. As long as Mr. 
Wesley lived the forms of union between the American and 
British Methodists must be kept up. He died in 1791. In 
1792 the first Quadrennial General Conference assembled, 
and the organization of this supreme legislative tribunal is 
the final announcement by the Americans of their irrevoca- 
ble independence. The government of American Episco- 
pal Methodism was thus completed; but English Methodism 
has continued to this day, in the eyes of some of its most 
cultured ministers and members, a hybrid somewhat, a 
cross between a Church and a Society. 

At that memorable first interview between Coke and As- 
bury at Barratt's Chapel, in Delaware, November 14, 1784, 
Asbury by his proposal to call a Conference, cordially sec- 
onded by the American preachers present, ultimately secured 
independence of Mr. Wesley and English Methodism, and 
self-government to American Methodism. Mr. Wesley did 
not include in his scheme the assembling of the American 
itinerants to pass judgment upon his proposals and plans, 
and to accept the one and elect the other of his appointees 
to the general superintendency. Wesley never intended to 
originate an American General Conference. Upon this fact 
proper historical emphasis has not, as yet, been placed. It 
was the germ of Conference authority, manifesting itself in 
the Annual Conferences in America, that gradually sepa- 
rated the American from the English Methodists ; that sub- 
sequently declined to elect Whatcoat and Garrettson, upon 
Mr. Wesley's nomination, to the episcopate; and that omit- 
ted Mr. Wesley's name from the Minutes. It was not the 
Christmas Conference, however, by its unforeseen organiza- 
tion, or by any subsequent action, that separated these Meth- 
odists of North America from any shadow of churchly au- 



192 



The Grand Climacteric Year : 1784. 



thority which the Church of England may have possessed 
in the United States after the revolutionary war: this frag- 
ile bond, if it did not fall away of itself, Mr. Wesley him- 
self unhesitatingly severed. In a word, it was the unex- 
pected organization of the Christmas Conference — which 
grew out of the stand which Mr. Asbury took in the inter- 
view at Barratt's Chapel, and whose powers and authority 
he recognized as capable of being set over against those of 
Mr. Wesley alone — that gave the American Church auton- 
omy; i. independence of Mr. Wesley and the English 
Conference. Dr. Coke was always uneasy at this point; 
not about the ordination — he came to make a man already 
superintendent a bishop, in fact if not in name; not about 
the organization of an Episcopal Church independent of, 
and indeed a successor to, the Church of England, then 
practically defunct in the States; but about the autonomy, 
the independence of Mr. Wesley and the home Conference. 
This Conference had not entered into Wesley's platform 
or Coke's. In Asbury's platform, however, it was the chief 
plank. This sufficiently explains Coke's language in his 
letter to Bishop White, in 1791, that he probably went fur- 
ther in the organization of the American Church than Mr. 
Wesley intended. 

All the indications are that Mr. Wesley meant his super- 
intendents to ordain whom they chose, and to be the sole ec- 
clesiastical rulers, under himself, of both preachers and peo- 
ple in America. They were not to wait on the election of a 
Conference before they conferred deacon's or elder's or- 
ders, for no executive or legislative assembly of preachers 
had been provided for by Mr. Wesley; and such was not the 
habit of the English Bishops or the law of the English 
Church. He, in turn, expected to name the superintend- 
ents with as much freedom as an English premier issues his 
conge d? elire to fill the vacancies in the sees of the Church 
of England. As the originator of the United Societies, he 
had been the fountain of authority, both legislative and ex- 
ecutive, in England and, up to this time, in America. He 



Wesley 's Final Settlement of Episcopal Methodism. 193 

therefore intended that Coke and Asbury should be the 
general superintendents of the American work as himself 
was of the English, making regulations and enforcing them, 
distributing the preachers according to their own judgment, 
and having entire and unquestioned oversight, with this ex- 
ception: Coke and Asbury were to continue subject to Mr. 
Wesley's authority, he not unnaturally considering himself 
as the proper head of the whole Methodist Connection in 
Europe and i\merica. Mr. Wesley took it upon himself, 
assisted by other presbyters, solemnly to ordain, and to ac- 
credit with the authority to ordain others, a man who was 
already a presbyter of the Church of England. He did not 
call this man a bishop, but by the equivalent title of Super- 
intendent; neither did he call himself the senior bishop, or 
the archbishop, of Methodism; yet that he esteemed himself 
a scriptural bishop and by appointment of Divine Provi- 
dence the patriarch and apostle of Methodism throughout 
the world is not open to question. In this conjoint episco- 
pal and patriarchal capacity he regarded himself as compe- 
tent to the government, even of the two men whom he con- 
stituted General Superintendents of American Methodism. 
If Asbury had accepted on these conditions, there would 
have been no independent American Conference, but cer- 
tainly a Church, for Mr. Wesley intended complete inde- 
pendency of any jurisdiction which the Church of England 
may have been supposed still to exercise in America. It 
would have been an Episcopal Church of the most ultra 
type, governed wholly by bishops, and destitute of a Gen- 
eral Conference or legislature of any sort, except as the 
British Conference stood in this relation to the American 
work. The bishops would have been subject to Mr. Wes- 
ley during his life, but in America would have governed as 
he did in England. They would have called the preachers 
together at sundry times and in divers convenient places, in 
an Annual Conference capacity — the capacity in which the 
British Conference really met during Mr. Wesley's life — to 
discuss local matters, and to receive their appointments; but 
13 



194 The Grand Climacteric Tear: 178/}.. 



all legislative and executive powers would have been resi- 
dent in the bishops themselves, subject to Mr. Wesley dur- 
ing his life, and to the British Conference after his decease. 
This was Mr. Wesley's plan; and it is due to the sagacity 
and far-sighted statesmanship of Asbury, in declining to ac- 
cept office on such terms, that a General Conference — first 
general in fact, and afterward delegated and limited — was 
subsequently incorporated in the fundamental organization 
of American Episcopal Methodism. Had the British Con- 
ference, after Mr. Wesley's death, assumed the same atti- 
tude toward the episcopacy of Coke and Asbury in America 
that it did toward that of Coke and Mather in England, and 
had the American Methodists submitted to the authority of 
the home Conference, Episcopal Methodism, answering to 
Wesley's own design, would have become extinct in the 
world. The Episcopacy would have been decapitated or 
ignored, and the American General Conference would not 
have come into existence. Thus Asbury opposed and over- 
ruled Wesley in America, but it proved the condition of car- 
rying the Founder's own plan into successful operation in 
the United States at least, despite the comparative failure in 
England, and that on a scale so magnificent that Wesley in 
his most optimistic mood never dreamed of such Episcopal 
Churches as now exist among the Methodists of America. 

IV. The Christmas Conference and Its Work. 

On the 17th of December, Coke and Asbury, having com- 
pleted their evangelistic itineraries, arrived under the roof of 
Mr. Gough, at Perry Hall, about fifteen miles from Baltimore. 
William Black, a preacher from Nova Scotia, and Vasey 
were also of the company. " Here," writes Coke, " I have 
a noble room to myself, where Mr. Asbury and I may, in 
the course of a week, mature everything for the Confer- 
ence." Whatcoat joined them on the 19th, and the next 
day they began the revision of " the Rules and Minutes." 
Asbury observed Friday, November 26, as a day of fasting 
and prayer, to know " the will of God in the matter that is 



Wesley 's Final Settlement of Episcopal Methodism. 195 



shortly to come before our Conference. The preachers and 
people," he adds, 44 seem to be much pleased with the pro- 
jected plan; I myself am led to think it is of the Lord. I 
am not tickled with the honor to be gained — I see danger in 
the way. My soul waits upon God. O that he may lead 
us in the way we should go ! Part of my time is, and must 
necessarily be, taken up with preparing for the Confer- 
ence. * 

The Christmas Conference began its session on Friday, 
December 24, at 10 a.m. in Lovely Lane chapel, Baltimore. 
Whatcoat says, 44 On the 24th we rode to Baltimore; at 
10 o'clock we began our Conference." Coke's entry is 
<4 On Christmas eve we opened our Conference." Asbury 
writes that they 44 continued at Perry Hall until Friday the 
twenty-fourth. We then rode to Baltimore, where we met 
a few preachers." Coke's certificate of Asbury' s ordination 
also shows that he was ordained deacon Saturday, Decem- 
ber 25. The joint testimony of Coke, Asbury, and What- 
coat is thus decisive of the date. The first Discipline of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, framed at this Conference, 
bears, however, this title: 44 Minutes of several Conversa- 
tions between the Rev. Thomas Coke, LL.D., the Rev. 
Francis Asbury, and others, at a Conference, begun in Bal- 
timore in the State of Maryland, on Monday the 27th of 
December, in the year 1784. Composing a Form of Disci- 
pline for the Ministers, Preachers, and other Members of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church in America. "t The har- 
mony of the two dates is probably found in the order of pro- 
ceedings. It is likely that the consideration of Mr. Wes- 
ley's circular letter, the settlement of the organization and 
title of the new Church, and the determination with regard 
to Mr. Asbury' s ordination, at least, occupied the time on 
Friday and Saturday. On Monday morning, possibly with 
a fuller Conference, the coversations began touching the re- 
vision of discipline, which continued throughout the week. 
No official records of the Christmas Conference are extant, 



* Journal, I. 377. f Robert Emory's Hist, of Discipline, pp. 25, 26, 87. 



196 



The Grand Climacteric Tear : 1784., 



save the preliminary reference in the Minutes of 1785 and 
the Discipline framed by this Conference and afterwards 
published, which Dr. Robert Emory gives entire in his His- 
tory of the Discipline. Asbury's notice of the Conference 
is as follows: 

It was agreed to form ourselves into an Episcopal Church, and to have 
superintendents, elders, and deacons. When the Conference was seated^ 
Dr. Coke and myself were unanimously elected to the superintendency of 
the Church, and my ordination followed, after being previously ordained 
deacon and elder, as by the following certificate may be seen: 

Know all men by these presents, That I, Thomas Coke, Doctor of Civil 
Law; late of Jesus College, in the university of Oxford, Presbyter of the 
Church of England, and Superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
in America; under the protection of Almighty God, and with a single eye 
to his glory; by the imposition of my hands, and prayer, (being assisted by 
two ordained elders,) did on the twenty-fifth day of this month, December, 
set apart Francis Asbury for the office of a deacon in the aforesaid Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church. And also the twenty-sixth day of the said month,, 
did by the imposition of my hands, and prayer, (being assisted by the said 
elders,) set apart the said Francis Asbury for the office of elder in the said 
Methodist Episcopal Church. And on this twenty-seventh day of the said 
month, being the day of the date hereof, have, by the imposition of my 
hands, and prayer, (being assisted by the said elders,) set apart the said 
Francis Asbury for the office of a superintendent in the said Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, a man whom I judge to be well qualified for that great work. 
And I do hereby recommend him to all whom it may concern, as a fit per- 
son to preside over the flock of Christ. In testimony whereof I have here- 
unto set my hand and seal this twenty-seventh day of December, in the year 
of our Lord 1784. Thomas Coke. 

Twelve elders were elected, and solemnly set apart to serve our societies 
in the United States, one for Antigua, and two for Nova Scotia. We spent 
the whole week in Conference, debating freely, and determining all things 
by a majority of votes. The Doctor preached every day at noon, and some 
one of the other preachers morning and evening. We were in great haste, 
and did much business in a little time. 

Monday, January 3, 1785. The Conference is risen, and I have now a 
little time for rest.* 

The "Minutes taken at the several Annual Conferences 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church for the year 1785 " con- 
tain this preliminary notice : "As it was unanimously agreed 
at this Conference that circumstances made it expedient for 
us to become a separate body, under the denomination of 



* Journal, I. 377, 378. 



Wesley 's Final Settlement of Efiscofal Methodism, 197 



the Methodist Episcopal Church, it is necessary that we 
should here assign some reasons for so doing." The circu- 
lar letter of Mr. Wesley, dated Bristol, September 10, 1784, 
and directed " to Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our Brethren 
in North America" is then cited as the Magna Charta of 
American Episcopal Methodism.* After the letter, this con- 
clusion is stated, " Therefore, at this Conference we formed 
ourselves into an Independent Church: and following the 
counsel of Mr. John Wesley, who recommended the Epis- 
copal mode of Church government, we thought it best to 
become an Episcopal Church, making the Episcopal office 
elective, and the elected superintendent or bishop f amena- 
ble to the body of ministers and preachers." 

In the first Discipline, framed by the Christmas Confer- 
ence, the question following the resolution of submission to 
Mr. Wesley, previously quoted in another connection, is this: 

®hies. 3. As the ecclesiastical as well as civil affairs of these United 
States have passed through a very considerable change by the revolution, 
what plan of Church government shall we hereafter pursue? Ans. We will 
form ourselves into an Episcopal Church, under the direction of superintend- 
ents, elders, deacons, and helpers, according to the forms of ordination an- 
nexed to our Liturgy, and the Form of Discipline set forth in these Minutes.J 

Whatcoat says in his Memoirs, already cited, 66 We agreed 
to form a Methodist Episcopal Church, in which the Liturgy 
(as presented by the Rev. John Wesley) should be read and 
the sacraments be administered by a superintendent, elders, 

*To the sentence "I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. 
Francis Asbury to be joint Superintendents " this footnote is attached, "As 
the translators of our version of the Bible have used the English word 
Bishop instead of Superintendent, it has been thought by us, that it would 
appear more scriptural to adopt their term Bishop." This was probably added 
by Mr. Asbury in 1787, when the title Superintendent was changed to Bishop 
in the Discipline. 

■\I know of no reason for supposing that the alternative word "bishop " 
was not in the original Minutes of 1785. The adjective Episcopal was incor- 
porated in the official title of the Church and occurs no less than three times 
in this sentence. Jesse Lee gives us a sufficient account of its first introduc- 
tion into the Discipline in 1787; but it seems to be a piece of conjectural and 
hypercritical emendation which would exclude it from the Minutes of 1785. 
Abel Stevens accepts it without question. 

J Robert Emory's Hist, of Discipline, p. 27. 



198 The Grand Climacteric Year: 1784.. 

and deacons, who shall be ordained by a presbytery, using the 
Episcopal form, as prescribed in the Rev. Mr. Wesley's 
prayer book. Persons to be ordained are to be nominated 
by the superintendent, elected by the Conference, and or- 
dained by imposition of the hands of the superintendent and 
elders; the superintendent has a negative voice." * He fur- 
ther gives us the most minute and accurate chronology of the 
session, stating that Coke and his presbyters ordained As- 
bury deacon on the second day, and elder on Sunday, the 
third day; on Monday Otterbein joined Coke, Whatcoat, 
and Vasey in his third ordination, to the Superintendency. 
This agrees with Coke's ordination parchment, cited above 
from Asbury's Journal: the settlement of Asbury's position 
was thus regarded of such importance that all three orders 
were bestowed upon him before the other preachers were 
elected and ordained. Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday 
were occupied with the revision and framing of the Disci- 
pline and the election of preachers to orders. Friday sev- 
eral deacons were ordained; Saturday, January 1, 1785, the 
college matter was under consideration ; Sunday, twelve eld- 
ers, previously ordained deacons, and one deacon were or- 
dained; "and we ended our Conference" says Whatcoat, 
" in great peace and unanimity." 

The elders chosen were Freeborn Garrettson and James 
O. Cromwell, for Nova Scotia, Jeremiah Lambert for An- 
tigua, and for the United States, John Tunnell, William 
Gill, LeRoy Cole, Nelson Reed, John Haggerty, Reuben 
Ellis, Richard Ivey, Henry Willis, James O'Kelly, and 
Beverly Allen. Of the ten original elders, first constituted 
in the Methodist Episcopal Church, it is remarkable that no 
less than six — Cole, Reed, Ellis, Ivey, Willis, and O'Kelly 
— had been master spirits in the old Southern "regular" 
Conference, which had contended so stoutly for the sacra- 
ments among Methodists. Cole and Ellis had been mem- 
bers of the presbytery appointed at Fluvanna in 1779, and 
all of these six had previously received ordination from that 



*Page 21. The italics are his own. 



Wesley 9 s Final Settlement of Efiscofal Methodism. 199 



presbytery. For renouncing their rights and patiently wait- 
ing, they had now their reward in being numbered among 
the elders hrst ordained by Superintendents Coke and As- 
bury. John Dickins — another able Fluvanna leader — Ig- 
natius Pigman, and Caleb Boyer were elected deacons. 
Coke says: 

They [the Conference] are indeed a body of devoted, disinterested men, 
but most of them young. The spirit in which they conducted themselves, 
in choosing the elders, was most pleasing. I believe they acted without be- 
ing at all influenced by friendship, resentment, or prejudice, both in choos- 
ing and rejecting. The Lord was peculiarly present while I was preaching 
my two pastoral sermons. 

In the sermon at the episcopal ordination of Asbury, he 
delivered himself with all the weight of a prophet's fire, both 
in denouncing existing evils in the English Church and in 
anticipating the unequaled success of Asbury's continental 
episcopate : 

You may now perceive [said he] the dreadful effects of raising immoral 
or unconverted men to the government of the Church. The baneful influ- 
ence of their example is so extensive that the skill and cruelty of devils can 
hardly fabricate a greater curse than an irreligious bishop. But thou. O 
man of God. follow after righteousness, godliness, patience, and meekness. 
Do the work of an evangelist, and make full proof of thy ministrv, and thv 
God will open to thee a wide door, which all thy enemies shall not be able to 
shut. He zvill carry his Gospel by thee from sea to sea, and fram one end of the 
continent to another. 

The Rev. Thomas Ware, who was present, bears explicit 
testimony to important points, particularly the choosino- of a 
name for the new Church: 

The order of things devised by him [Wesley] for our organization as a 
Chuch, filled us with solemn delight. . . . We did. therefore, according 
to the best of our knowledge, receive and follow the advice of Mr. Weslev, 
as stated in our form of Discipline. After Mr. Wesley's letter, appointino- 
Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury joint superintendents over the Methodists in 
America, had been read, analyzed, and cordially approved bv the confer- 
ence, a question arose what name we should take. I thought to mvself, I 
was content that we should call ourselves the Methodist Church, and so 
whispered to a brother that sat near me. But one proposed. I think it was 
John Dickins. that we should call ourselves the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. Mr. Dickins was, in the estimation of his brethren, a man of ster- 
ling sense and sterling piety; and there were few men on the conference 
floor heard with greater deference than he. The most of the preachers had 



200 



The Grand Climacteric Tear: 1784.. 



been brought up in what was called the Church of England; and all being 
agreed that the plan of general superintendency was a species of Episcopa- 
cy, the motion was carried, without, I think, a dissenting voice. There was 
not, to the best of my recollection, the least agitation on this question. Had 
the conference indulged the least suspicion that the name they were about 
to take, would in the least degree cross the views or feelings of Mr. Wesley, 
it would have been abandoned; for the name of Wesley was inexpressibly 
dear to the Christmas Conference, and to none more so than to Asbury and 
Coke. After our organization, we proceeded to elect a sufficient number of 
elders to visit the quarterly meetings, and administer the ordinances; and 
this it was that gave rise to the office of presiding elders among us.* 

In his letter of December 1, 1828, Ware declares that 
44 Dr. Coke was in favor of taking the name Methodist Epis- 
copal Church." It is not improbable that Dickins proposed 
this title on the floor of the Conference at the suggestion of 
Coke and Asbury, and, as there is evidence that the Doctor 
44 argued " the point before the Conference, it is not surpris- 
ing that the name was adopted without dissent or debate, for, 
says Ware, in the article on 44 The Christmas Conference " 
just cited, Dr. Coke 44 was the best speaker in a small circle, 
or on a Conference floor, I ever heard." f 

Ware vindicates the fair names of Coke and Asbury 
against the aspersions of schismatic agitators of the times in 
which he wrote, little dreaming that there would arise men 
who, a century after the Christmas Conference, would labor 
to prepare an historical basis for the same allegations, de- 
liberately reiterated: 

Had I, at the close of the Christmas Conference, been told that, in some 
future time, even before I should go the way of all flesh, men would arise 
calling themselves Methodists, who would report, and even put forth their 
most skillful exertions to make the world believe that Asbury and Coke did, 
from sheer ambition, conspire against Mr. Wesley, whom they professed so 
much to love and honor, and on him surreptitiously father a spurious Epis- 
copacy, and thereby with falsehood stain, not only the fame of the man 
Wesley, but the first page of their Discipline, to be perpetuated throughout 
all future generations, I should have said, No, surely, that can never be, 
that from ourselves men should arise who could excogitate, or even retail, 
so foul a slander: — that be far from them. £ 

-Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review; Art. "Christmas Conference," by Thomas 
Ware, January number, 1832, p. 98. 
tp. 104. 

% Ware's Art., "The Christmas Conference," in Meth. Mag. and Quart. Rev., p. 100. 



Wesley 's Final Settlement of Episcopal Methodism. 201 



In pursuance of our plan to gather the testimony of the 
participants in the Christmas Conference as to what the 
Conference itself understood Mr. Wesley to intend, and as 
to what the body actually did, and thus, as far as possible, 
to remedy the defect arising from the lack of an official 
journal of the proceedings, we may now introduce the Rev. 
Freeborn Garrettson. In a letter to Rev. A. M'Caine, dated 
September 29, 1826, in answer to inquiries which were in- 
tended to elicit information discreditable to Methodist Epis- 
copacy and to the origin of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
he says: 

With respect to jour first query, I am fully of opinion the Christmas 
conference was authorized by Mr. Wesley, to organize themselves under an 
episcopal form of church government. Dr. Coke did receive ordination to 
the superintendency by the laying on of the hands of Mr. Wesley and the 
presbyters present, and had directions to consecrate Mr. Asbury. Mr. Wes- 
ley's letter in the discipline satisfies me, and I have seen from his pen 
where he asserts his opinion in favor of episcopacy as the best form of 
church government. . . . Remember Mr. Wesley speaks of a moderate 
episcopacy, in which I do most cordially agree. 

With regard to your second query, nearly forty years have passed away, 
and I cannot charge my memory with every minutia; however, instructions 
were communicated from Mr. Wesley, and as we were all young, humble, 
happy, and sincere, and well pleased with what he offered, (would to God 
we were all so now,) I doubt not but that we followed his wishes to a 
punctilio. 

With regard to your third query, actions speak louder than words. Dr. 
Coke was ordained deacon and presbyter, and Mr. Wesley laid hands on 
him a third time for the general superintendency in our church, and direct- 
ed the setting apart Asbury for the same office; and in the year 1787, he ap- 
pointed two others [Garrettson himself and Whatcoat] to be set apart for 
the same office. The word bishop in the primitive church was as simple as 
that of elder or presbyter, and perhaps more so ; but it rose by slow degrees, 
till there was arch over arch, till an infallible monster was brought forth. 
Mr. Wesley designed we should have a moderate episcopacy, and therefore 
he gave us the word superintendent instead of bishop; and the change of 
the word was cause of grief to that dear old saint, and so it was to me* 

Our old friend, William Watters, first native American 
itinerant, and President of the Conference of 1778 when 
Rankin had returned to England and Asbury was a local 
preacher in retirement, says: 



*Meth. Mag. and Quart. Rev., July, 1830, pp. 340, 341. 



202 



The Grand Climacteric Tear : 1784.. 



We formed ourselves into a separate Church. This change was pro- 
posed to us by Mr. Wesley after we had craved his advice on the subject, 
but could not take effect until adopted by us; which was done in a deliber- 
ate, formal manner, at a Conference called for that purpose, in which there 
was not one dissenting voice. Every one, of any discernment, must see 
from Mr. Wesley's Circular Letter on this occasion, as well as from every 
part of our mode of Church government, that we openly and avowedly de- 
clared ourselves Episcopalians, though the doctor and Mr. Asbury were 
called Superintendents * 

William Phoebus, another member of the Conference, 
deposes as follows: 

We assembled at the city of Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, and 
received Thomas Coke, LL.D., with his testimonials from the greatest man 
to us in the world. He proceeded to form the first Church that ever was 
organized under a pure republican government, and the first that was ever 
formed in this happy part of the world. In the year of our Lord 1785, and 
in the ninth year of the independence of the United States, on the first day 
of January, we thought it not robbery to call our society a Church, having 
in it, and of it, several presbyters and a President.^ 

Dr. Coke, in his sermon at the third ordination of Mr. 
Asbury, already quoted, says that Mr. Wesley, " after long 
deliberation saw it his duty to form his Society in America 
into an independent Church; but he loved the most excel- 
lent liturgy of the Church of England, he loved its rites and 
ceremonies, and therefore adopted them in most instances 
for the present case." From the beginning, as we have 
seen, " bishop " was used in the Minutes of 1785, as an ex- 
planatory synonym for 66 superintendent." By July, 1785, 
Coke was with Wesley at the British Conference. 

Coke also took to England the American Minutes, and they were print- 
ed on a press which Wesley used, and under his own eye. The Baltimore 
proceedings were therefore known to Wesley, but we hear of no remon- 
strance from him. They soon became known, by the Minutes, to the pub- 
lic; and when Coke was attacked publicly for what he had done, he replied, 
as we have seen, through the press, that " he had done nothing but under 
the direction of Mr. Wesley." Wesley never denied it. J 

Nearly four years elapsed after the organization of the 
Church with the adjective "Episcopal" in its title, and 
after the publication on Wesley's press of the Minutes of 



* Autobiography, p. 104. |See Myles, Chron. Hist, of Methodists, p. 165. 
% Stevens, Hist. Meth. II. 227; cf. Hist. M. E. Ch., II. 191. 



Wesley 's Final Settlement of Episcopal Methodism. 203 



1785 containing the word " bishop " as a synonym for " su- 
perintendent " before Wesley rebuked Asbury (September 
20, 1788 is the date of Wesley's famous and oft-quoted let- 
ter) for permitting himself to be personally described and 
addressed as 44 bishop." 

Finally in 1789, there was inserted in the Discipline for 
the first time, " Sec. 3. On the Nature and Constitution of 
our Church," of which the concluding paragraph reads as 
follows : 

For these reasons we have thought it our duty to form ourselves into an 
independent church. And as the most excellent mode of church govern- 
ment, according to our maturest judgment, is that of a moderate episcopacy ^ 
and as we are persuaded that the uninterrupted succession of bishops from 
the apostles can be proved neither from Scripture nor antiquity, we there- 
fore have constituted ourselves into an Episcopal Church, under the direc- 
tion of bishops, elders, deacons, and preachers, according to the forms of or- 
dination annexed to our Prayer-book, and the regulations laid down in this 
Form of Discipline. 

Under the following section, the first question is " What 
is the proper origin of the Episcopal authority in our 
Church? " and the answer is: 

In the year 1784 the Rev. John Wesley, who, under God, has been the 
father of the great revival of religion now extending over the earth by the 
means of the Methodists, determined, at the intercession of multitudes of 
his spiritual children on this continent, to ordain ministers for America, and 
for this purpose sent over three regularly-ordained clergy ; but preferring 
the Episcopal mode of church government to any other, he solemnly set 
apart, by the imposition of his hands and prayer, one of them, namely, 
Thomas Coke, doctor of civil law, late of Jesus College, in the University of 
Oxford, for the episcopal office; and having delivered to him letters of epis- 
copal orders, commissioned and directed him to set apart Francis Asbury, 
then general assistant of the Methodist Society in America, for the same 
Episcopal office, he, the said Francis Asbury, being first ordained deacon 
and elder. In consequence of which, the said Francis Asbury was solemnly 
set apart for the said Episcopal office by prayer and the imposition of the 
hands of the said Thomas Coke, other regularly-ordained ministers assisting 
in the sacred ceremony. At which time the General Conference held at 
Baltimore did unanimously receive the said Thomas Coke and Francis As- 
bury as their bishops, being fully satisfied of the validity of their Episcopal 
ordination.* 



* Robert Emory's Hist, of Discipline, ed. 1844, PP- 93> 94- The writer of these lines has in 
his possession a copy of the Discipline of 1790 which contains the same language unaltered. 
Bishop Hendrix has a copy of 179 1 : no change in the form of statement was made until 1792. 



204 The Grand Climacteric Year: 1784.. 

This corresponds with the sentiments of Bishops Coke 
and Asbury expressed in their Notes on the Discipline, pre- 
pared by request of the General Conference of 1796, and 
impliedly sanctioned by the General Conference of 1800, 
which directed them to be bound up with the Form of Dis- 
cipline. In Section I. "Of the Origin of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church " these first Bishops say: 

The late Rev. John Wesley recommended the episcopal form to his so- 
cieties in America; and the General Conference, which is the chief synod 
of our church, unanimously accepted of it. Mr. Wesley did more. He first 
consecrated one for the office of a bishop, that our episcopacy might descend 
from himself. The General Conference unanimously accepted of the per- 
son so consecrated, as well as of Francis Asbury, who had for many years 
exercised every branch of the episcopal office, excepting that of ordination. 
Now, the idea of an apostolic succession being exploded, it follows, that the 
Methodist Church has everything which is Scriptural and essential to justify 
its episcopacy. Is the unanimous approbation of the chief synod of a church 
necessary? This it has had. Is the ready compliance of the members of 
the church with its decision, in this respect, necessary? This it has had, 
and continues to have. Is it highly expedient, that the fountain of the epis- 
copacy should be respectable? This has been the case. The most respect- 
able divine since the primitive ages, if not since the time of the apostles, 
was Mr. Wesley. 

Under Section IV. " Of the Election and Consecration of 
Bishops and of their duty," Coke and Asbury declare: 

In considering the present subject, we must observe, that nothing has 
been introduced into Methodism by the present episcopal form of govern- 
ment, which was not before fully exercised by Mr. Wesley. He presided in 
the conferences; fixed the appointments of the preachers for their several 
circuits; changed, received, or suspended preachers wherever he judged that 
necessity required it; traveled through the European connection at large; 
superintended the spiritual and temporal business; and consecrated two 
bishops, Thomas Coke and Alexander Mather, one before the present epis- 
copal plan took place in America, and the other afterward, besides ordaining 
elders and deacons* 

The preceding is a complete resume of the evidence, de- 
rivable from contemporary sources, of Mr. Wesley's inten- 
tions, of the understanding of Superintendents Coke and 
Asbury, of Presbyter Whatcoat, and of participants in the 
Christmas Conference, as to what that body did when it 
organized the Methodist Episcopal Church. Almost every 



* Emory's Hist, of the Discipline, ed. 1844, pp. 282, 287. 



Wesley \s Final Settlement of Episcopal Methodism. 205 



step, from Wesley's ordination of Coke to the adjournment 
of the Conference, has been stubbornly disputed, and the 
evidence critically sifted by objectors, within and without 
the limits of Methodism, who have sought in one interest or 
another, to minify or discredit the results reached and per- 
manently embodied in the constitution of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. That a " moderate episcopacy" was 
constituted : that an Episcopal Church was organized ; that 
a ministry in three grades or orders was permanently pro- 
vided for; that the Christmas Conference understood itself 
and Mr. Wesley; that the " ambition " of Coke and Asbury 
did not lead them to impose upon Wesley, on the one hand, 
and on the American Methodists on the other, a " spurious 
episcopacy," never designed by the Founder or intelligently 
accepted by the Church; that Wesley himself fully approved, 
against his brother Charles and other malcontents in En- 
gland, what Dr. Coke had done as his envoy and represent- 
ative: all this has been made indubitable by a patient and 
candid survey of the extant contemporary records. The ten 
days' work of this historic organizing convention has been 
before the world for more than a century and, for the ends 
aimed at by its authors, may challenge comparison with the 
imperishable results achieved by those unselfish patriots, 
who assembled less than three years later, and, under the 
presidency of the Father of his country, wrought out the 
Constitution of the United States. When it became evident 
that the eleven states represented in the Convention at 
Philadelphia, in 1787, had unanimously endorsed the Con- 
stitution, Benjamin Franklin, surveying an image of the sun, 
emblazoned on the back of the president's chair, said to 
those about him, " I was not able to tell whether it was ris- 
ing or setting; now I know that it is the rising sun." * 
Over America's plains and rivers, mountains and valleys, 
when the Christmas Conference adjourned, the Sun of 
righteousness was rising with healing in his wings. "Pro- 
claim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants 

* Bancroft, Hist. U. S., Author's Last Revision, VI. 367. 



206 The Grand Climacteric Tear: 1784.. 

thereof:" Church and Nation were now ready to run the 
race of the mighty Nineteenth century that lay all unknown 
before them. The Lord reigneth: let the earth rejoice! 

We may be permitted to remind the reader, in concluding 
this section of our studies, that the preceding inquiry is 
purely historical. The writer has no aspiration in these 
pages to win the honors of the controversialist or polem- 
ic. He has not sought to compose an essay on the princi- 
ples of Church government. He has not even raised the 
question as to what Methodist Episcopacy ought to be, or 
whether the Church is now competent to improve it. His 
investigation has been confined to the single point of deter- 
mining what Methodist Episcopacy and the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church were in their origin : what Mr. Wesley de- 
signed them to be and what the Christmas Conference ac- 
tually constituted them. 44 Whatever view we take of the 
subject," concludes Abel Stevens, "we are compelled to 
one conclusion: that Wesley did create and establish the 
American Methodist episcopacy. The man who gainsays 
such evidence must be given up as incorrigible. There can 
be no reasoning with him."* "Episcopal" is the chief 
word in the title of the two Methodist Episcopal Churches, 
and " Methodist " is a qualifying term to point out the kind 
of Episcopalians we are. The grammar and the logic, as 
well as the history of our name, make Episcopal the genus 
and Methodist the species. As Dr. Whedon forcefully said 
in the old Quarterly, we are neither Methodist Congrega- 
tional nor Methodist Presbyterian, but Methodist Episcopal 
Churches. The one ground of the use of the term "Epis- 
copal " in the name of our Churches is generally over- 
looked. The word does not imply simply that the govern- 
ment is episcopal, as distinguished from presbyterial or con- 
gregational. Asbury and his coadjutors, and our early 
English membership, were Episcopalians; and history will 
sustain the point that our name was meant to indicate the 
organization on scriptural principles of the first, (and there- 
*Hist. of Meth., II. 229. 



Wesley 9 s Final Settlement of Efiscofal Methodism. 207 



fore at that time the one,) Episcopal Church on the Ameri- 
can continent. Hitherto the American Methodists had re- 
ceived the sacraments from the English clergy resident in 
the colonies, and regarded themselves as members of that 
Church. In 1784, when the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
America was organized, neither the English nor the Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church existed here in legal or complete 
organic form. The American Methodists, by the help of 
Mr. Wesley, therofore organized themselves into an Ameri- 
can Episcopal Church, taking the name and style already 
indicated. They regarded themselves as the successors of 
the old Church, then defunct, and entered upon their work 
accordingly. The Methodist Episcopalians still adhered 
" to the doctrines and discipline of the Church of England," 
and this historical truth is fittingly embalmed in the parch- 
ment of their first bishop. American Methodism, according 
to the design of its founders, has for more than a century 
approved itself as the great popular Episcopal Church of 
America. "The Methodist bishops were the first Protest- 
ant bishops, and Methodism was the first Protestant Episco- 
pal Church of the New World; and as Mr. Wesley had 
given it the Anglican articles of religion (omitting the sev- 
enteenth, on predestination), and the liturgy, wisely 
abridged, it became, both by its precedent organization and 
its subsequent numerical importance, the real successor to 
the Anglican Church in America." * 



* Stevens, Hist, of Meth., II. 215. 



CHAPTER XII. 



FIRST DISCIPLINE OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 



THE " Form of Discipline for the Ministers, Preachers, 
and other Members of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
in America" adopted by the Christmas Conference, was 
formulated in one continuous series of questions and an- 
swers, eighty-one in number. It was printed in Philadel- 
phia in 1785, and may be indifferently referred to as the 
Discipline of 1784, in the last week of which year it was es- 
tablished, or of 1785, the date of its publication. It was 
based on the 66 Large Minutes " of the British Conference, 
though matter from the American Minutes and much new 
legislation, suited to the changed conditions of the new 
Church, were incorporated. In Dr. Robert Emory's His- 
tory of the Discipline* may be found an exact record of the 
differences between this first American Methodist Discipline 
and the edition of the Large Minutes for 1789, the last re- 
vision made before Mr. Wesley's death. Any reader who 
may have been led to suppose that American Methodism 
was, in its rules and regulations, a comparatively inde- 
pendent development, or that the year 1784 marks a total 
breach between the Disciplines of the two Connexions, or 
what afterwards became two distinct ecclesiastical bodies, 
will be surprised and gratified to discover how close is the 
correspondence between the Discipline of 1784 and the 
Large Minutes of 1789. But, however interesting the task of 
tracing some of the most familiar language of our present 
Discipline to its original enactment by early English Confer- 
ences, we shall have to content ourselves in these pages with 
brief notices of the material legislation of 1784. 



(208) 



*Ed. of 1844, pp. 25-79. 



First Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 209 



I. Superintendents 1 Elders, mid Deacons. 
With regard to Superintendents, Elders, and Deacons the 
Christmas Conference passed the following regulations : 

®hies. 26. What is the office of a superintendent? Ans. To ordain super- 
intendents, elders, and deacons; to preside as a moderator in our Confer- 
ences; to fix the appointments of the preachers for the several circuits ; and, 
in the intervals of the Conference, to change, receive or suspend preachers, 
as necessity may require; and to receive appeals from preachers and peo- 
ple, and decide them. N. B. No person shall be ordained a superintendent, 
elder, or deacon, without the consent of the majority of the Conference, 
and the consent and imposition of hands of a superintendent; except in the 
instance provided for in the 29th Minute. 

ghies. 27. To whom is the superintendent amenable for his conduct? 
Ans. To the Conference : who have power to expel him for improper con- 
duct, if they see it necessary. 

g)iies. 28. If the superintendent ceases from traveling at large among the 
people, shall he still exercise his office in any degree? Ans. If he ceases 
from traveling without the consent of the Conference, he shall not thereafter 
exercise any ministerial function whatsoever in our Church. 

®hies. 29. If by death, expulsion or otherwise, there be no superintendent 
remaining in our Church, what shall we do? Ans. The Conference shall 
elect a superintendent, and the elders, or any three of them, shall ordain 
him according to our Liturgy. 

£>iies. 30. What is the office of an elder? Ans. To administer the sacra- 
ments of baptism and the Lord's supper, and to perform all the other rites 
prescribed by our Liturgy. 

Ques. 31. What is the office of a deacon? Ans. To baptize in the absence 
of an elder, to assist the elder in the administration of the Lord's supper, to 
marry, bury the dead, and -read the Liturgy to the people as prescribed,, 
except what relates to the administration of the Lord's supper. 

Ques. 35. How are we to proceed with those elders or deacons who cease 
from traveling? Ans. Unless they have the permission of the Conference 
declared under the hand of a superintendent, they are on no account to ex- 
ercise any of the peculiar functions of those offices among us. And if they 
do, they are to be expelled immediately. 

ghies. 63. Are there any further directions needful for the preservation of 
good order among the preachers? Ans. In the absence of a superintendent, 
a traveling preacher or three leaders shall have power to lodge a complaint 
against any preacher in their circuit, whether elder, assistant, deacon, or help- 
er, before three neighboring assistants; who shall meet at an appointed time, 
(proper notice being given to the parties,) hear, and decide the cause. And au- 
thority is given them to change or suspend a preacher, if they see it necessary, 
and to appoint another in his place, during the absence of the superintendents.* 

All of these regulations concerning ministers and sacra- 



*Dr. Robert Emory's Hist, of the Discipline, ed. 1844, pp. 38-59 (extracts) 

14 



2IO 



The Grand Climacteric Tear : 1784.. 



ments were devised and enacted at the Christmas Confer- 
ence, there being, of course, nothing answering to them in 
the Large Minutes. Rules with regard to baptism, and par- 
ticularly the liberal provision ( Ques. 47) which did not refuse 
members of other Churches the privileges of membership 
with the Methodists, are worthy of notice, but need not de- 
tain us here. The duties of a superintendent are, (1) To 
ordain men to the three grades of the ministry; (2) to pre- 
side in the Conferences; (3) to fix the appointments; (4) 
to change, receive, and suspend preachers in the interval of 
the Conference; (4) to entertain and decide appeals from 
■preachers and people; (5) to exercise, if he see fit, a sus- 
pensive veto not only upon the Conference election of dea- 
cons and elders, but also upon the election of additional Su- 
perintendents ; (6) to travel at large among the people, 
under penalty, in the event of failure so to do, of suspension 
from all ministerial functions. On the other hand, for his 
conduct the Superintendent is amenable to the Conference 
"who have power to expel him for improper conduct, if 
they see it necessary." Thus the Conference of 1784 set- 
tled once for all the great underlying principles of episco- 
pal administration and responsibility as they have contin- 
ued with slight alteration for one hundred and ten years. 
The duties of Bishops have been somewhat changed from 
time to time: in the current Discipline their amenability to 
the Conference is still defined in the same terms originally 
employed by the fathers of the Christmas Conference. 
There were masters of assemblies in that body, who well 
knew what Israel ought to do ! The regulations concerning 
elders and deacons are substantially the same as have since 
been in continuous operation. The answer to Question 63, 
however, reveals the fact that class-leaders were distinctly 
recognized as an organic part of the official pastorate of the 
Church, having oversight not only of the people, but in a 
sense also of the preachers: " In the absence of a superin- 
tendent, a traveling preacher, or three leaders, shall have 
power to lodge a complaint against any preacher," etc. The 



First Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church . 211 



spiritual offices of the Christian ministry for edification and 
discipline were thus distributed among Superintendents, eld- 
ers (usually presiding elders), Assistants (preachers in 
charge), deacons, helpers, and class-leaders. And here 
may be properly introduced a sketch of the origin and rela- 
tions of the several grades of pastoral office in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, immediately preceding and following the 
legislation of 1784. This sketch is taken from a hitherto un- 
published manuscript of the late Joshua Soule in the posses- 
sion of the writer of these lines. It is hardly necessary to 
remark that Joshua Soule was twice elected Bishop of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church (in 1820 and 1824); that he 
was the Senior Bishop in 1844; and that he continued in 
that relation to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, until 
his decease in 1867. He was born in Maine in 1781 ; began 
traveling under the presiding elder in 1798; was admitted at 
New York in 1799; in 1804 he became presiding elder of the 
Maine District; in 1816, Book Agent at New York; he was 
a member of the General Conference of 1808, and "was 
author of the plan for a delegated General Conference."* 
This paper of Bishop Soule's is without date, but bears 
marks of age and is written in the steadier handwriting of 
his earlier years. His observations are evidently largely de- 
rived from his personal association with the fathers of the 
Church and from his knowledge of the workings of the 
Methodist system in the last decade of the eighteenth cent- 
ury and the first decade of this. Mr. Soule says: 

The system adopted by Mr. Wesley for the execution of discipline in 
America was Episcopal in its nature. As he was (under God) the Father 
of the Methodist Societies both in Europe and America, the members and 
preachers united in looking up to him as such, and considered him as pos- 
sessing all authority both in the temporal and spiritual concerns of the So- 
cieties. But as he could not personally take charge of the Societies in 
America, he appointed some to act as General Assistants, in maintaining the 
order and discipline as contained in the Minutes of Conference and his 
writings ; to these were added Assistants, whose special business was to take 
the oversight of the circuit to which he was appointed, and when one, or 



* Bishop Matthew Simpson's Cyclopedia of Methodism, p. 814. 



212 



The Grand Climacteric Tear: 1784.. 



more, was united with him as a colleague, he was denominated the Helper, 
and to these may be added the Leaders, in their respective classes. The 
Leader had the duties peculiar to his office to discharge; the Helper was 
authorized to attend to all the work which a Leader could perform, and 
when directed by those higher in office he was authorized to perform duties 
which a Class-leader could not. The Assistant was fully authorized to at- 
tend to all the work of the ministry and the execution of every part of the 
Discipline within his circuit; while the General Assistant was authorized 
to attend to all temporal and spiritual matters pertaining to the Societies in 
any and every circuit where he traveled. This was the original order of 
things. 

In 1784 when these Societies were organized into a separate and distinct 
Church, there was no change in this system. Doctor Coke was ordained a 
Superintendent by Mr. Wesley and sent to America to act in Mr. Wesley's 
place, and [he] consequently vested him with ample powers to superintend 
and do the work of an evangelist in organizing the Church and this he did 
on the plan recommended by Mr. Wesley, which was on the Episcopal plan; 
consequently no material change was made in the system first introduced. 
An Episcopacy being recommended and appointed by Mr. Wesley, his rec- 
ommendation was approved of and his appointment confirmed by the Amer- 
ican preachers; and, in organizing the Church, they admitted of two orders 
in the ministry, Elders and Deacons. In the administration of the discipline 
of the Church, the following plan was pursued, to wit: the Bishops were to 
travel at large through the Connection, preside in the Conferences, fix the 
appointments of the preachers; in the intervals of Conference to change, re- 
ceive, and suspend preachers as necessity requires and discipline directs; to 
perform ordinations, and, in a word, to take the general oversight of the 
spiritual and temporal business of the Church. To aid them in this work 
those who formerly attended to the business which pertained to the General 
Assistants were appointed to be ruling or Presiding Elders, each one having 
the special charge of a convenient number of circuits, denominated a Dis- 
trict, through which he was to travel and attend to all the temporal and spir- 
itual business of the Church within the several circuits composing his Dis- 
trict, and that the discipline of the Church might more effectually be admin- 
istered, the preacher, in general, on the several circuits who had most experi- 
ence and was able to attend to the business was appointed to take charge of 
the circuit and, as formerly, act as Assistant to the Elder, while his col- 
league, as upon the old plan, was considered the Helper: these, together 
with the Leaders, all united in carrying the discipline into effect, so that 
with a well digested code of regulations, the moral discipline of the Gospel 
may be completely maintained and the Church preserved pure both in faith 
and practice. And such is the nature of an Episcopal system of govern- 
ment that when an inferior officer is deficient in discharging his duty, the 
superior is fully authorized to attend to the business. For the several grades 
of executive officers, whether Bishops, Presiding Elders, Assistant Preach- 
ers, or Helpers are each one authorized to do all the business which is made 
the peculiar business of the inferior. Hence a Bishop may not only preside 
in a General Conference; but it is his privilege and duty, when present, to 



First Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church . 213 



preside in Annual and Quarterly Conferences, and if his time and strength 
is not employed in attending to higher duties, he is fully authorized to sit 
and preside on the trial and expulsion of private members. The Presiding 
Elders are equally clothed with executive power so far as it relates to their 
District; the Assistant and Helper as it relates to the circuit, and down to 
the Leader as it relates to his class. 

//. The Rise of the Presiding Eldership, 

We may now a little more formally than we have hitherto 
done notice the origin of the office of presiding elder. 
This office is not explicitly recognized in the Discipline of 
1784. Yet this is the epoch of its virtual creation. It came 
with the first Superintendents, the first ordinations, the first 
formal provision for the administration of the sacraments, 
and is, therefore, coeval with the organization of the 
Church. Thomas Ware has already told us how the ordi- 
nation of sufficient elders at the Christmas Conference " to 
visit the quarterly meetings and administer the ordinances " 
was the measure which " gave rise to the office of presiding 
elder among us." Bishop Soule tells us how this officer has 
been recognized from the beginning as the special deputy 
and representative of an absent Bishop, and how he stood 
in the same relation to Assistants which the General Assist- 
ant had formerly occupied. In the appointments of 1785, 
for the first time, the names of Willis, Ivy, Ellis, Reed, 
Matson, O'Kelly, Foster, Whatcoat, Boyer, Gill, Vasey, 
and Chew, some of whom were elected and ordained after 
the Christmas Conference, are prefixed to groups of circuits, 
ranging from two to eight in number, while the title Elder 
is affixed to their names. The almost invariable rule in the 
beginning, was that elders were assigned to districts, or, rath- 
er, to groups of circuits not yet denominated by this name. 
This was the origin of this office, though the title " presid- 
ing elder " does not appear regularly in the Minutes until as 
late as 1797. In the Discipline it occurs first in 1792. The 
first person to bear this title in the official records of the 
Church is William McKendree, whose district stands first in 
the appointments of 1797. Richard Whatcoat's district is 



214 



The Grand Climacteric Year: 1784.. 



the second.* The title also occurs in the Journal of the 
General Conference of 1796.! As early as 1786, however, 
the following was added to the duties of an elder, as defined 
above in the answer to Ques. 30, "2. To exercise within 
his own district, during the absence of the superintendents, 
all the powers vested in them for the government of our 
Church. Provided, that he never act contrary to an express 
order of the superintendents." % This tallies exactly with 
Bishop Soule's account of the original relation existing be- 
tween the Bishops and the Presiding Elders. Dr. Stevens 
appears to have overlooked, or to have attached little im- 
portance to, the appointment of elders to oversee groups of 
circuits at the very first Annual Conferences after the Christ- 
mas Conference. He similarly disregards the action re- 
corded in the Discipline of 1786, and his statement that 
"the new elders, ordained at the Christmas Conference, 
were appointed only to administer the sacraments " § is 
too strong and exclusive. No doubt the administration of 
sacraments to the long-destitute Societies was a chief func- 
tion of the new Superintendents, Elders, and Deacons; but 
it is not probable that the Elders (whose dignity was recog- 
nized as little inferior to that of the Superintendents them- 
selves,) when they were assigned to the districts that we 
have seen were constituted at the Conference sessions of 
1785, were deprived of all pastoral and disciplinary author- 
ity, save preaching and administering the sacraments. 
Ware expressly says the original elders " were to visit the 
quarterly meetings." They were placed in charge of the 
preachers and people of their districts, and though this offi- 
cial superiority was not defined in the first edition of the 
Discipline, as was first done a year later, Ware's testimony, 
as well as the usage which we know became universal very 
shortly afterwards, points to the fact that from the begin- 
ning the Elders who were in charge of districts presided 
in the Quarterly Conferences, in the absence of a Superin- 

* Minutes, ed. of 1813, p. 193. J Emory's Hist, of the Discipline, p. 125. 
t Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 16. § Hist. M. E. Ch., II. 222. 



First Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church . 215 



tendent, and, as Mr. Soule says, discharged, in general, the 
duties which had formerly devolved on the General As- 
sistant. One differs with diffidence from such an authority 
as Abel Stevens: he is quite right, however, when he adds 
that the Bishop, at this period, had 66 no 4 cabinet' of pre- 
siding elders, a species of council which usage has since es- 
tablished, though it has no recognition in the Discipline." * 
In 1789, a section 44 On the Constituting of Elders and 
their Duty" was substituted in the Discipline for the previ- 
ous provisions. The Elder is 44 to travel through his ap- 
pointed district;" 4 4 in the absence of a bishop to take charge 
of all the deacons," etc., showing that, as a rule, he did not 
have charge of other elders, and that all elders served dis- 
tricts; 44 to change, receive, or suspend preachers;" 44 to 
take care that every part of our Discipline be enforced;" 
44 to attend his bishop when present," etc. These regula- 
tions stood until 1792. The Journal of the General Confer- 
ence of 1792 is not extant. But Coke and Asbury in their 
Notes to the Discipline of 1796 have this to say: 

On the principles or data above mentioned, all the episcopal Churches in 
the world have in some measure formed their church government. And 
we believe we can venture to assert, that there never has been an episcopal 
church of any great extent which has not had ruling ox presiding elders, ei- 
ther expressly by name, as in the apostolic churches, or otherwise in effect. 
On this account it is, that all the modern episcopal churches have had their 
-presiding or ruling elders under the names of grand vicars, archdeacons, 
rural deans, etc. ............ 

Mr. Wesley informs us in his Works, that the whole plan of Methodism 
was introduced, step by step, by the interference and openings of divine 
Providence. This was the case in the present instance. When Mr. Wesley 
drew up a plan of government for our church in America, he desired that 
no more elders should be ordained in the first instance than were absolutely 
necessary, and that the work on the continent should be divided between 
them, in respect to the duties of their office. The General Conference ac- 
cordingly elected twelve elders for the above purposes. Bishop Asbury and 
the district [annual] conferences afterward found that this order of men was 
so necessary that they agreed to enlarge the number, and give them the name 
by which they are at present called, [of which, however, there is no trace in 
the Minutes: the Bishop probably acted, and the Conferences acquiesced] 
and which is perfectly Scriptural, though not the -word used in our transla- 
tion: and this proceeding afterward received the approbation of Mr. Wesley. 

-Hist. M. E. Ch., II. 222, 224. 



2l6 



The Grand Climacteric Year: 1784.. 



In 1792 the General Conference, equally conscious of the necessity of 
having such an office among us, not only confirmed everything that Bishop 
Asbury and the district conferences had done, but also drew up or agreed 
to the present section for the explanation of the nature and duties of the 
office. The conference clearly saw that the bishops wanted assistants; that 
it was impossible for one or two bishops so to superintend the vast work on 
this continent as to keep everything in order in the intervals of the confer- 
ence, without other official men to act under them and assist them : and as 
these would be only the agents of the bishops in every respect, the authority 
of appointing them, and of changing them, ought, from the nature of things, 
to be in the episcopacy. If the presiding or ruling elders were not men in 
whom the bishops could fully confide, or on the loss of confidence, could 
exchange for others, the utmost confusion would ensue. This also renders 
the authority invested in the bishops of fixing the extent of each district, 
highly expedient. 

From all that has been advanced, and from those other ideas which will 
present themselves to the reader's mind on this subject, it will appear that 
the presiding elders must, of course, be appointed, directed, and changed by 
the episcopacy. And yet their power is so considerable that it would by no 
means be sufficient for them to be responsible to the bishops only for their 
conduct in their office. They are as responsible in this respect, and in every 
other, to the yearly conference to which they belong, as any other preacher ; 
and may be censured, suspended, or expelled from the connection, if the 
conference see it proper: nor have the bishops any authority to overrule, 
suspend, or meliorate in any degree the censures, suspensions, or expulsions 
of the conference* 

The section adopted in 1792 recognizes the duty of the 
Presiding Elder to preside in Annual Conferences (then 
called district) and first explicitly mentions quarterly meet- 
ings: s< 4. In the absence of a bishop to preside in the Con- 
ference of his district. 5. To be present as far as practi- 
cable at all the quarterly meetings," etc. In two distinct 
questions, the bishop is empowered first to choose, and then 
to station and change the presiding elders. f This section 
stood unchanged until 1804. 

III. The New Term of Communion. 

The Christmas Conference imposed a new term of com- 
munion. The question, numbered 42, was asked, " What 
methods can we take to extirpate slavery?" and this answer 
was given : 



* Emory's Hist, of the Discipline, ed. 1844, pp. 293-295. j" Ibid., pp. 126, 127. 



First Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church . 217 



We are deeply conscious of the impropriety of making new terms of com- 
munion for a religious society already established, excepting on the most 
pressing occasion; and such we esteem the practice of holding our fellow- 
creatures in slavery. We view it as contrary to the golden law of God on 
which hang all the law and the prophets, and the inalienable rights of man- 
kind, as well as every principle of the Revolution, to hold in the deepest de- 
basement, in a more abject slavery than is to be found in any part of the 
world except America, so many souls that are all capable of the image of God. 

We therefore think it our most bounden duty to take immediately some 
effectual method to extirpate this abomination from among us; and for that 
purpose we add the following to the rules of our Society, viz.: 

1. Every member of our Society who has slaves in his possession shall, 
within twelve months after notice given to him by the assistant (which no- 
tice the assistants are required immediately, and without delay, to give in 
their respective circuits), legally execute and record an instrument where- 
by he emancipates and sets free every slave in his possession who is be- 
tween the ages of forty and forty-five immediately, or at farthest when they 
arrive at the age of forty-five ; and every slave who is between the ages of 
twenty-five and forty immediately, or at farthest at the expiration of five 
years from the date of said instrument; and every slave who is between the 
ages of twenty and twenty-five immediately, or at farthest when they arrive 
at the age of thirty ; and every slave under the age of twenty as soon as they 
arrive at the age of twenty-five at farthest; and evei-y infant born in slavery 
after the above-mentioned rules are complied with immediately on its birth. 

2. Every assistant shall keep a journal, in which he shall regularly min- 
ute down the names and ages of all the slaves belonging to all the masters 
in his respective circuit, and also the date of every instrument executed and 
recorded for the manumission of the slaves, with the name of the court, 
book, and folio in which the said instruments respectively shall have been 
recorded; which journal shall be handed down in each circuit to the suc- 
ceeding assistants [pastors]. 

3. In consideration that these rules form a new term of communion, 
every person concerned who will not comply with them shall have liberty 
quietly to withdraw himself from our Society within the twelve months suc- 
ceeding the notice given as aforesaid; otherwise the assistant shall exclude 
him in the Society. 

4. No person so voluntarily withdrawn, or so excluded, shall ever par- 
take of the Supper of the Lord with the Methodists, till he complies with 
the above requisitions. 

5. No person holding slaves shall, in future, be admitted into Society or 
to the Lord's Supper, till he previously complies with these rules concern- 
ing slavery. 

B These rules are to affect the members of our Society no farther 

than as they are consistent with the laws of the States in which they re- 
side. And respecting our brethren in Virginia that are concerned, and 
after due consideration of their peculiar circumstances, we allow them two 
years from the notice given, to consider the expediency of compliance or 
non-compliance with these rules. 



I 



218 The Grand Climacteric Year : 1784. 

This legislation at once came to naught. It lies beyond 
our prescribed limits to notice the details of the excitement 
which followed. The general histories may be consulted 
for this. Thomas Ware declares, "We assumed nothing; 
made no new term of communion, save one on slavery, and 
that we could never rigidly enforce."* In less than six 
months the operation of these rules was suspended. The 
Minutes of the Annual Conferences for 1785 contain this 
action, ' 6 It is recommended to all our brethren to suspend 
the execution of the minute on slavery, till the deliberations 
of a future Conference; and that an equal space of time be 
allowed all our members for consideration, when the minute 
shall be put in force." f The Discipline formulated at the 
Christmas Conference was printed in Philadelphia in 1785, 
as we have seen, and bound up with the " Sunday Service " 
and the 44 Collection of Psalms and Hymns" which Mr. 
Wesley sent from England in sheets by the hand of Dr. 
Coke. As a matter of fact, this slavery legislation appeared 
in that first edition of the Discipline alone. The action of 
1785 was, by common consent, regarded as its absolute re- 
peal, and, in the second edition, printed in London in 1786, 
the above-cited legislation disappears. J "The suspending 
minute," says Dr. Sherman, " really struck out all provis- 
ions on the subject." § From this time until 1796, a period 
of ten years, no further mention of the subject occurs in the 
Discipline except in the General Rules. In 1787 however, 
the Minutes reveal another trend. The Annual Conferences 
took this decided action: 

Ques. 17. What directions shall we give for the promotion of the spirit- 
ual welfare of the colored people? Ans. We conjure all our ministers and 
preachers, by the love of God, and the salvation of souls, and do require 
them, by all the authority invested in us, to leave nothing undone for the 
spiritual benefit and salvation of them, within their respective circuits or 
districts; and for this purpose to embrace every opportunity of inquiring 
into the state of their souls, and to unite in Society those who appear to 
have a real desire of fleeing from the wrath to come; to meet such in class, 
and to exercise the whole Methodist discipline among them. || 

"Art. on Christmas Conf., in Meth. Mag. and Quart. Rev.. Jan. 1832, p. 100. 
f Minutes, ed. 1813. p. 55. 

X Emory's Hist, of Discipline, ed. 1844, p. 80. 
\ Hist, of the Discipline, p. 116, footnote. 
|| Minutes, ed. 1813, pp. 67, 68. 



BOOK IV. 



From the Christmas Conference to the Insti- 
tution of the Quadrennial General 
Conference, 1792. 

L The Conferences from 1785 to 1792. 
II. The Council. 

(219) 



CHAPTER XIII. 



THE CONFERENCES FROM 1 785 TO 1 792. 



ACCORDING to adjournment at Baltimore in the spring 
of 1784, notwitstanding the unexpected intervention of 
the Christmas Conference, three Conferences were held in 
the spring of 1785: the first at Green Hill's, North Carolina, 
April 20; the second at Mason's, Brunswick Co., Va., 
May 1; and the last, as usual, at Baltimore, June 1. All 
these slightly anticipated the appointed time.* Jesse Lee, 
who gives us these dates, also informs us that, in the orig- 
inal publications, " the business of the three Conferences 
was all arranged in the Minutes, as if it had all been 
done at one time and place," an arrangement also followed 
in the reprint of 1813. This continued to be the form of 
publication adopted for the General Minutes until 1802, 
when for the first time, the one traveling connection is di- 
vided into recognized Annual Conference bodies by sepa- 
rating and designating the appointment of the preachers as 
in the following Conferences : Western ; South Carolina ; Vir- 
ginia ; Baltimore ; Philadelphia ; New York ; and New En- 
gland, f The next year this improved arrangement is extend- 
ed to the statistics of members in Society; J and in 1805 the 
division into Annual Conference groups is carried through the 
answers of all the disciplinary questions. § Lee further says 
that "This year [1785] and the two succeeding years the 
Minutes were called 6 Minutes of the General Conference of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church in America,' "|| and, as he 
wrote in 1809, he is probably correct; but by 1813, the date 
of our earliest extant reprint, when the Quadrennial Dele- 

* Minutes, ed. of 1813, p. 48. | Minutes of 1813, pp. 275-281. 

t PP- 290-294. § Ibid., pp. 325-355- 

|| Hist, of the Methodists, p. 118. 

(221) 



222 To the Institution of the General Conference, 1792. 



gated General Conference had already held one session, such 
an official heading would have been ambiguous, and then, 
if not in 1794, when John Dickins made the first collection of 
the Minutes, the change was probably made to the usual cap- 
tion, " Minutes taken at the Several Annual Conferences," 
etc. It is probably safe to trace the conforming of the run- 
ning titles of 1785, 1786, and 1787 with those of later date, to 
the hand of Dickins, since, when he published his General 
Minutes, the first General Conference of 1792 had been held. 
Lee gives an interesting notice of the rise of the presiding 
eldership, as we have outlined it in a preceding chapter, con- 
firming our view that as early as 1785, the elder had charge of 
his circuit preachers. He says: 

The form of the Minutes of Conference was changed this year, and all 
the elders who were directed to take the oversight of several circuits were 
set to the right hand of a bracket, which inclosed all the circuits and preach- 
ers of which he was to take charge. This may be considered as the begin- 
ning of the presiding elder's office ; although it was not known by that name 
at that time, yet, in the absence of a superintendent, this elder had the direct- 
ing of all the preachers that were inclosed in the bi-acket against which his 
name was set.* 

Three Conferences are appointed for 1786 and 1787, six 
for 1788, eleven for 1789, fourteen for 1790, extending from 
Georgia to New York and from Baltimore to Kentucky and 
Holstein; for 1792, the last year of our present period, sev- 
enteen were appointed. f We can no longer, however, fol- 
low these sessions even in the scanty detail which the extant 
sources afford, but must dismiss them with the remark that 
the Minutes cannot be depended upon for the sessions actu- 
ally held, but only for those appointed. " Some, as for ex- 
ample, the first New York session, [1788] are unmentioned; 
others, like that designated in the printed list as of 4 Connec- 
ticut ' for 1791, did not meet." % 

The only important business in the Conferences of 1785, 
as we have seen, was the suspension and virtual repeal of the 
slavery legislation of the Christmas Conference. Coke con- 

* Hist, of the Methodists, pp. 1 19, 1 20. | Minutes, 181 3, pp. 55, 61, 68, 76, 85, 107. 
% Stevens, Hist. M. E. Ch., II. 495- 



The Conferences from 1785 to 1792. 



223 



tinued in America for about five months after the adjourn- 
ment of that body, sailing for England June 2. Sunday, 
May 1, he is with Asbury at the Virginia Conference. 

After mature consideration [he says] we formed a petition, a copy of 
which was given to every preacher, entreating the General Assembly of 
Virginia to pass a law for the immediate or gradual emancipation of all the 
slaves. It is to be signed by all the freeholders we can procure, and those I 
believe will not be few. There have been many debates already on the 
subject in the Assembly. Many of our friends, and some of the great men 
of the states, have been inciting us to apply for acts of incorporation, but I 
have discouraged it, and have prevailed. We have a better staff to lean 
upon than any this world can afford. 

This was, doubtless, a better concerted scheme than that 
of emancipation by Church regulations; for, at this time, 
many of the statesmen and people of Virginia, as well as 
other parts of the South, were decidedly in favor of some 
method of gradual emancipation by law. By Jefferson's or- 
dinance of 1784, though slavery then prevailed throughout 
much more than half the lands of Europe, it " was to be 
rung out with the departing century, so that in all the 
western territory, whether held in 1784 by Georgia, North 
Carolina, Virginia, or the United States, the sun of the new 
century might dawn on no slave." * Washington, Richard 
Henry Lee, Jefferson, Randolph, Madison, and Grayson 
desired the abolition of slavery. t The committee of eleven 
in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, to whom was re- 
ferred the question of limiting the time of the legal toleration 
of the slave trade, reported in favor of the year 1800. It 
was moved and seconded that the time be extended to 
1808. 66 Madison spoke earnestly against the prolongation; 
but, without further debate, the motion prevailed by the 
votes of the three New England States, Maryland, and the 
three southernmost States, against New Jersey, Pennsylva- 
nia, Delaware, and Virginia." i At about the time when the 
Virginia Conference, under the lead of Coke and Asbury, 
was formulating and circulating its petition to the General 
Assembly for the immediate or gradual emancipation of the 



* Bancroft, Hist. U. S., VI. 117. \Ibid., VI. 262. %Ibid., VI. 320. 



224 To the Institution of the General Conference, 1792. 



slaves, Jefferson and Wythe, as commissioners to codify the 
laws of Virginia, had provided for gradual emancipation, 
which, however, the legislature of 1785 refused to do.* It 
was this movement in the civil realm, which, doubtless, the 
Virginia Conference in 1785 sought to foster and support. 
Washington's sentiments may be gathered from Coke's ac- 
count of the interview, when he and Asbury dined by ap- 
pointment at Mount Vernon: 

He received us [says Coke] very politely, and was very open to access. 
He is quite the plain country gentleman. After dinner we desired a private 
interview, and opened to him the grand business on which we came, pre- 
senting to him our petition for the emancipation of the negroes, and en- 
treating his signature, if the eminence of his position did not render it inex- 
pedient for him to sign any petition. He informed us that he was of our 
sentiments, and had signified his thoughts on the subject to most of the 
great men of the State; that he did not see it proper to sign the petition, 
but if the Assembly took it into consideration, would signify his sentiments 
to the Assembly by a letter.^ 

The Conferences of 1786 enacted nothing material to our 
history; but this year a second edition of the Sunday service 
was printed in London for the use of the American Metho- 
dists. Traces of the use of Mr. Wesley's prayer-book con- 
tinue to be met with down to 1792: it was reprinted by order 
of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, held in 1866, and its use made optional in 
the Churches. Gowns and bands were also used by the 
Bishops and elders for some years after the Christmas Con- 
ference. Jesse Lee attended a service conducted by Bishop 
Asbury in January 1785, and " to his very great surprise and 
no little mortification, just before the commencement of the 
service, Bishop Asbury came out of his room in full canon- 
icals, gown, cassock, and band." 

Mr. Asbury had evidently procured his canonicals imme- 
diately after his ordination as Bishop. Sunday, June 5, 

* Bancroft, Hist. U. S., VI. 118. 

-j-Drew, Life of Coke, pp. 108-113, speaks of Washington as, at this time, 
President of the United States which is, of course, an error. He seems to 
have confused this interview of the two Bishops with Washington in 1785 
with an Address which they presented to the President in 1789, just after 
his inauguration, to which attention will be given later. 



The Conferences from 1785 to 1J92. 



225 



1785, he laid the corner-stone of Cokesbury College. "At- 
tired in his long silk gown and with his flowing bands the 
pioneer Bishop of America took his position on the walls of 
the College."* To Asbury, who had been a life-long at- 
tendant on the services of the Church of England, this 
attire seemed no affectation in one occupying the position 
of a Bishop, but natural and necessary. 

It was Wesley's desire that another General Conference, 
i. e., an assembly of all the preachers, should be held in 
1787, as may be gathered from the following letter: 

London, September 6, 1786. 
Dear Sir: — I desire that you would appoint a General Conference of all 
our preachers in the United States to meet at Baltimore on May 1, 1787, and 
that Mr. Richard Whatcoat may be appointed superintendent with Mr. 
Francis Asbury. I am, dear sir, your affectionate friend and brother. 

John Wesley. 

To the Rev. Dr. Coke. 

Objections, which will presently be considered, were 
raised to the election of Whatcoat and he was not, at this 
time, made a Superintendent. Wesley also nominated Gar- 
rettson for Nova Scotia. Jesse Lee tells us that 

When the business was taken under consideration, some of the preachers 
insisted that if he was ordained for that station, he should confine himself 
wholly to that place for which he was set apart. Mr. Garrettson did not 
feel freedom to enter into an obligation of that kind, and chose rather to 
continue as he was, and therefore was not ordained."}" 

This appears to harmonize with Garrettson's own ac- 
count: 

It was the desire of Mr. Wesley and others that I should be set apart for 
the superintendency of the work in Nova Scotia. My mind was divided. 
Man is a fallible creature. In the end I concluded not to leave the States, 
for thousands in this country are dear to me. On the whole we had a 
blessed Conference, and my appointment was to preside in the Peninsula. J 

Thus the first attempt of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
to create a missionary bishop proved abortive. Garrettson 
had been ordained elder at the Christmas Conference and 
appointed to Nova Scotia, where his labors were extensive 
and successful. Wesley was so favorably impressed that 

*Srickland's Asbury, p. 163. fHist. of the Methodists, p. 126. 

J Autobiography, p. 220. 

15 



226 To the Institution of the General Conference, 1792. 



he requested his election and ordination as Superintendent 
for the British possessions in America, comprising the Can- 
adas, the Northeastern provinces, and also the West Indies. 
Mr. Garrettson writes: 

Dr. Coke, as Mr. Wesley's delegate and representative, asked me if I 
would accept of the appointment. I requested the liberty of deferring my 
answer until the next day. I think on the next day the doctor came to my 
room and asked me if I had made up my mind to accept of my appoint- 
ment; I told him I had upon certain conditions. I observed to him that I 
was willing to go on a tour, and visit those parts to which I was appointed, 
for one year; and if there was a cordiality in the appointment among those 
whom I was requested to serve, I would return to the next Conference and 
receive ordination for the office of superintendent. His reply was, " I am 
perfectly satisfied," and he gave me a recommendatory letter to the breth- 
ren in the West Indies, etc. I had intended, as soon as Conference rose, to 
pursue my voyage to the West India Islands, to visit Newfoundland and 
Nova Scotia, and in the spring to return. What transpired in the Confer- 
ence during my absence I know not; but I was astonished, when the ap- 
pointments were read, to hear my name mentioned to preside in the 
Peninsula. 

Thus it appears that partly through conditions imposed by 
the Conference, and partly through reluctance and delay on 
the part of the nominee, Mr. Wesley was disappointed in his 
desire that Garrettson should be made a Superintendent. 

Dr. Coke did not escape without censure. He had sailed 
from the West Indies, where he had been organizing mis- 
sions, for Charleston, S. C, February 10, 1787, arriving on 
the 28th. There he met Asbury and presided with him over 
the first session of the South Carolina Conference. The 
Baltimore Conference had been appointed the year be- 
fore to meet at Abingdon, July 24, but Coke, while yet in 
Europe, had, according to Mr. Wesley's request, changed 
both the time and the place, naming Baltimore as the place 
and May 1 as the time. At this Conference Whatcoat's 
and Garrettson 's nominations to the episcopacy were taken 
up, for final disposition. The result of the agitations was 
that Coke entered into an engagement with the body which, 
after all, amounted to little more than an agreement to re- 
frain from the exercise of his episcopal powers while absent 
from the United States. It was couched in these terms: 



The Conferences from lySj to IJ92. 



227 



I do solemnly engage by this instrument that I never will, by virtue of 
my office as Superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church during my 
absence from the United States of Am erica, exercise any government what- 
ever in the said Methodist Church during my absence from the United 
States. And I do also engage that I will exercise no privilege in the said 
Church when present in the United States, except that of ordaining, accord- 
ing to the regulations and law already existing or hereafter to be made in 
the said Church, and that of presiding when present in Conference, and 
lastlv that of traveling at large. Given under my hand, the second day of 
May, in the year 1787. Thomas Coke. 

Witnesses: Johx Tuxxell, John Haggerty, Xelsox Reed. 

Accordingly the Minutes for 1787 begin: e< ^jies. 1. 
Who are the superintendents of our Church for the United 
States? Ans. Thomas Coke (when present in the States) 
and Francis Asbury." * 

The narrative of the Rev. Thomas Ware plainly points 
cut what were the powers of which Dr. Coke deprived him- 
self while present in the United States: 

The liberty that he took in changing the time and place of holding the 
Conference gave serious offense to many of the preachers. But this was not 
all, nor even the chief matter, which caused some trouble at this Conference. 
Mr. Wesley had appointed Mr. Whatcoat a Superintendent, and instructed 
Dr. Coke to introduce a usage among us, to which, I may safely say, there 
was not one of the preachers inclined to submit, much as thev loved and 
honored him. Mr. Wesley had been in the habit of calling his preachers to- 
gether, not to legislate, but to confer. Many of them he found to be excel- 
lent counselors, and he heard them respectfully on the weighty matters 
which were brought before them ; but the right to decide all questions he re- 
served to himself. This he deemed the more excellent wav; and, as we had 
volunteered and pledged ourselves to obey, he instructed the Doctor, con- 
formably to his own usage, to put as few questions to vote as possible, say- 
ing: "If you, Brother Asbury and Brother Whatcoat, are agreed, it is 
enough." To place the power of deciding all questions discussed, or nearlv 
all, in the hands of the superintendents, was what could never be introduced 
among us — a fact which we thought Mr. Weslev could not but have known, 
had he known us as well as we ought to have been known by Dr. Coke. 
After all, we had none to blame as much as ourselves. In the first effusion 
of our zeal Ave had adopted a rule binding ourselves to obey Mr. Wesley; 
and this rule must be rescinded, or we must be content not only to receive 
Mr. Whatcoat as one of our superintendents, but also — as our brethren of 
the British Conference — with barely discussing subjects, and leaving the de- 
cision of them to two or three individuals. This was the chief cause of our 
rescinding the rule. All, however, did not vote to rescind it; some thought 



*Ed. of 1813, p. 62. 



228 To the Institution of the General Conference, 1792. 



it would be time enough to do so when our superintendents should claim to 
decide questions independently of the Conference, which it was confidently 
believed they never would do. . . . There were also suspicions enter- 
tained by some of the preachers, and perhaps by Mr. Asbury himself, that if 
Mr. Whatcoat were received as a superintendent, Mr. Asbury would be re- 
called. For this none of us were prepared.* 

Jesse Lee goes a little more into detail about Whatcoat's 
rejection: 

When this business was brought before the Conference most of the 
preachers objected, and would not consent to it. The reasons against it 
were: 1. That he was not qualified to take the charge of the Connection. 
2. That they were apprehensive that if Mr. Whatcoat was ordained, Mr. 
Wesley would likely recall Mr. Asbury, and he would return to England. 
Dr. Coke contended that we were obliged to receive Mr. Whatcoat, because 
we had said in the minute adopted at the Christmas Conference when we 
were first formed into a Church in 1784, "During the life of the Rev. Mr. 
Wesley we acknowledge ourselves his sons in the gospel, ready in matters 
belonging to Church government to obey his commands." Many of the 
members of that Conference argued that they were not at the Conference 
when that engagement was entered into, and they did not consider them- 
selves bound by it. Other preachers, who had said they were " ready to 
obey his commands," said they did not feel ready now to obey his command. 
The preachers at last agreed to depart from that engagement, which some 
of the elder brethren had formally entered into, and in the next printed 
Minutes that engagement was left out. They had made the engagement of 
their own accord, and among themselves; and they believed they had a 
right to depart therefrom when they pleased, seeing it was not a contract 
made with Mr. Wesley or any other person, but an agreement among them- 
selves. 

We have now before us the data, gathered from contem- 
porary sources, for a proper estimate of the constitutional is- 
sues involved. The legislation of the Christmas Conference 
with regard to the election, duties, and amenability of a Su- 
perintendent had properly the force of constitutional law, at 
least until modified or repealed by the body which originat- 
ed it, whether assembled at one time and place or scattered 
through the several sessions of the Annual Conferences. 
This was true of all the enactments of 1784, since they were 
passed by a majority vote of the entire traveling ministry. 
Consequently when the slavery legislation of 1784 proved 
impracticable, the Conferences of 1785 repealed it. It was 



* Autobiography, pp. 129-131. 



The Conferences from 1785 to 1792. 



229 



not competent for any other authority to do so. The year 
1787 brought the test of the new system, which had been in- 
augurated in 1784. It was inevitable that sooner or later an 
issue would arise on some practical measure which would 
bring about a collision between the assumed powers of the 
American Conferences, where questions were decided by a 
majority of votes, and the supreme control of Mr. Wesley. 
Of the Founder, Bishop Asbury says that 

He rigidly contended for a special and independent right of governing the 
chief minister or ministers of our order, which, in our judgment, went not 
only to put him out of office, but to remove him from the Continent to else- 
where, that our father saw fit; and that, notwithstanding our constitution 
and the right of electing every Church-officer, and more especially our Su- 
perintendent, yet we were told, " Not till after the death of Mr. Wesley our 
constitution could have its full operation."* 

This was true so far as the operation of the Deed of Dec- 
laration was concerned in England, but had no relevancy to 
the enactments of the Christmas Conference for America. 
Asbury then cites the resolution of submission to Mr. Wes- 
ley in matters pertaining to Church government, adopted in 
1784, which, he says, "we were called upon to give" and 
44 which could not be dispensed with — it must be." f It 
would thus appear that this minute was exacted by Mr. 
Wesley by the mouth of his envoy, Dr. Coke. Unfortu- 
nately the competition of authority between Mr. Wesley and 
the Conference, which arose in 1787, as a consequence of 
the contradictory elements introduced, (apparently very in- 
nocently and almost unconsciously so far as the body of 
preachers was concerned,) into the constitution of 1784, has 
generally been treated as if the history of church govern- 
ment among the American Methodists began in 1784. But 
a series of twelve Annual Conferences had been held previ- 
ously to that date, and Rankin's first Philadelphia Confer- 
ence of 1773 had settled, for the time, at least, some consti- 

* Letter to Rev. Joseph Benson, written Jan. 15, 1816, a little more than 
two months before Asbuiw's death. The letter is given in full in Paine's 
Life of McKendree, II. 293-308, Appendix, 
t Paine, Life of McKendree, II. 296. 



230 To the Institution of the General Conference, 1792. 



tutional questions touching the supreme authority of Mr. 
Wesley. All of the following events, we have minutely re- 
hearsed and, as we have seen, troubles almost immediately 
arose. Bishop Asbury, in the letter to Benson cited above, 
throws some new light on his relations to Rankin and the 
correspondence with Wesley about Asbury's own recall to 
England: 

Mr. Wesley wrote concerning Diotrephes [Rankin], honest George [Shad- 
ford], and Francis, " You three be as one; act by united counsels." But who 
was to do that with Diotrephes? Francis had a prior right of government, 
by special order and letter from Mr. Wesley, a few months after he had been 
in the country [when he succeeded Boardman, and before Rankin's arrival]; 
and if he could not exercise it in the cities, where the first missionaries that 
came over were located by necessity, (having no proper men to change with 
them,) yet Francis in the country endeavored to do the best he could. Mat- 
ters did not fit well between Diotrephes and him, and poor Francis was 
charged with having a gloomy mind, and being very suspicious, etc. It 
would be presumed, because Francis was a little heady, that Diotrephes 
wrote to Mr. Wesley to call Francis home immediately. Be it as it might, 
Mr. Wesley wrote such a letter to Francis; and Francis wrote in answer, 
that he would prepare to return as soon as possible, whatever the sacrifice 
might be. Then Diotrephes said, "You cannot go; your labors are wanted 
here." Francis said, " Mr. Wesley has written for me; I must obey his or- 
der." Diotrephes said, " I will write to Mr. Wesley, and satisfy him." 
Shortly after came a letter from Mr. Wesley to Francis, in substance thus: 
" You have done very well to continue in America and help your brethren, 
when there was such a great call."* 

It was doubtless with regard to the Baltimore appointment 
that Asbury, in extreme old age, was willing to confess 
frankly that he had been "a little heady." Much experi- 
ence with refractory preachers had now taught him how seri- 
ously he had embarrassed Rankin's administration. But, 
from this time forward, there seems to have abode in As- 
bury's mind a constant fear, almost morbid, that, at some 
critical juncture, when his own views and policy clashed with 
Wesley's, the patriarch at home would cut short the contro- 
versy by recalling the American apostle to England. In 1783 
Asbury had clearly indicated to Wesley his desire and, we 
may say, intention to remain at the head of the American 
itinerants. Wesley's letter received by Asbury, December 24, 

* Paine, Life of McKendree, II. 307. 



The Conferences from 1785 to iyg2. 



231 



1783, was not so much an appointment as a recognition of 
Asbury's existing official headship in America. Coke's cor- 
respondence with Wesley before his departure on the Ameri- 
can mission sufficiently reveals that the diplomatic foreign 
minister of Methodism was by no means confident of the re- 
ception he would meet with from Asbury, or that the Ameri- 
can chief would easily consent to a sharing of his powers. 
Accordingly he promptly declined Dickins's proposal to make 
Mr. Wesley's plan public at New York before Mr. Asbury 
had been consulted. When the plan was first communicated 
to Asbury he was " shocked." Throughout the interval be- 
tween Coke's arrival and the meeting of the Christmas Con- 
ference, it is evident from Asbury's Journal that his mind 
was troubled with many misgivings. He insisted on election 
by the Conference, and interposed the vote of the entire 
body of American itinerants between himself and the au- 
thority of Mr. Wesley. If Dr. Coke did not at first take in 
the full significance of this action, and the regulations con- 
cerning the Superintendents embodied in the Discipline of 

1784, there can be no question that Mr. Wesley did. In a 
letter of October 31, 1789, published by Hammett in Charles- 
ton, Mr. Wesley alluded to the correspondence of 1783: 

I was a little surprised when I received some letters from Mr. Asbury 
affirming that no person in Europe knew how to direct those in America. 
Soon after he flatly refused to receive Mr. Whatcoat in the character I sent 
him. He told George Shadford, "Mr. Wesley and I are like Caesar and 
Pompey ; he will bear no equal, and I will bear no superior."* And accord- 
ingly he quietly sat by until his friends voted my name out of the Ameri- 
can Minutes. This completed the matter and showed that he had no con- 
nection with me. 

If the preachers of the Christmas Conference innocently 
inserted the minute of submission, Mr. Asbury was not una- 

*The biographers and historians who quote this letter commonly append 
a footnote to the effect that Mr. W esley was mistaken in attributing this 
language to Asbury. It was doubtless an imprudence which Asbury sin- 
cerely regretted, but I know of no evidence that he ever denied it, though 
he had abundant opportunity to do so. Shadford was his bosom friend and 
stood also very close to Mr. Wesley ; if Asbury ever used the language it was 
a private confidence to Shadford. 



232 To the Institution of the General Conference, 1792. 



ware of its purpose and meaning. Wesley was, by common 
consent, a man of the keenest penetration, of unexampled 
common sense, and of the first abilities as an ecclesiastical 
statesman, likened, by competent authorities, to the greatest 
rulers in Church and State the world has ever produced. 
He had seen the growing tendency to independence in As- 
bury and the Americans. His heart was set on a perpetual, 
world-wide union of Methodists. He had been cut off from 
all control of the American Methodists during the Revolu- 
tion. Their independence was inevitable, or Wesley would 
have arrested the tendency, if anybody could have done so. 
Asbury was a man of the same practical, and scarcely infe- 
rior, talents. He is the real founder of American Methodism. 
" I did not think it practical expediency," he says, " to obey 
Mr. Wesley at three thousand miles distance." But Mr. 
Wesley did; and here the issue was joined. The resolution 
of submission in 1784, which, Asbury says, " could not be 
dispensed with — it must be," was Wesley's measure, submit- 
ted according to his instructions by his representative, Dr. 
Coke, for destroying the centrifugal movement in America, 
and bringing all into subordination to himself. Asbury alone, 
among the Americans, comprehended the full import and 
bearing of the minute. Some dross of human infirmity may 
have mingled with his motives, but his heart was true to the 
cause of American autonomy. " I never approved of that 
binding minute," he says, under date of November 28, 1796, 
"at the first General Conference I was mute and modest when 
it passed; and I was mute when it was expunged." 

In 1787, the underlying issue was, after all, not so much 
between Wesley and the Conference, or between Coke and 
the Conference, as between the Wesleyan and Asburyan 
policies for the government and development of American 
Methodism. Coke, no doubt, undertook honestly and zeal- 
ously to carry out the wishes and instructions of Mr. Wes- 
ley. In so doing, he came into collision with the Confer- 
ence and, for a time, forfeited the sympathies of Bishop 
Asbury. Coke says in his Journal that when he arrived in 



The Conferences from 1785 to IJ92. 



233 



the country, in the latter part of February, 1787, on his 
way, according to Mr. Wesley's instructions, to hold a 
" General Conference," he was " very coolly" received by 
Asbury. Nevertheless, Asbury acquiesced in Wesley's 
nomination of Whatcoat for the superintendency, and at the 
first South Carolina Conference, held in Charleston, with 
both the Superintendents present, the nomination was con- 
firmed. At the Virginia Conference, however, serious op- 
position was made by James O'Kelly, who declared that he 
did not consider Whatcoat " adequate to the task on account 
of his age, and also that he was a stranger in the wilderness 
of America." The era of the modern palace-car Bishop 
had not yet dawned; and O'Kelly may have entertained a 
sneaking notion that he was better qualified for the office 
than Whatcoat. It was, however, agreed in Virginia that 
the matter should be finally disposed of at the Baltimore 
Conference, " on condition," as Nicholas Snethen says, 
" that the Virginia Conference might send a deputy to ex- 
plain their sentiments." According to Snethen, 66 a vote was 
taken that Richard Wriatcoat should not be ordained Super- 
intendent, and that Mr. Wesley's name should for the future 
be left off the American Minutes. Mr. Asbury neither made 
the motion nor advocated it; the whole case was constitu- 
tionally carried through the Conference and voted by a fair 
majority. Mr. Asbury, indeed, foresaw the consequence 
when the question was in contemplation, and informed the 
patrons of it that he expected all the blame would be im- 
puted to him, if it should be carried." * 

It is evident from the letter in which Mr. Wesley directed 
Dr. Coke to call a General Conference at Baltimore, May 1, 
1787, that he understood the contradictory principles which 
the Christmas Conference had bound up together in the con- 
stitution of the Church. The resolution of submission, lit- 
erally interpreted, empowered him to appoint superintend- 
ents. But the resolution was general, and the directions for 
electing a superintendent, placed in the Discipline of 1784, 



* Reply to Mr. O'Kelly's Apology. 



234 To the Institution of the General Conference, 1792. 



particular. Wesley himself saw that the resolution, practi- 
cally, must be interpreted in the light of the law, especially 
as Asbury had been elected in 1784. Consequently he did 
not venture beyond nomination in the case of Whatcoat and 
Garrettson, submitting their election to the voice of a Gen- 
eral Conference to be called for the purpose. But here 
loomed up the ancient spectre of Asbury' s removal: 

Early in 1787 [says Mr. MorrellJ, Mr. Wesley intimated a design of re- 
moving Mr. Asbury from America to Europe, and of sending us a Superin- 
tendent of his own nomination. When the Conference assembled, some of 
the eldest and most sensible of the elders observed that Mr. Wesley had no 
authority to remove Mr. Asbury, much less could he impose a Superintend- 
ent on us without our choice ; for it was written in our constitution that " no 
person should be ordained a Superintendent over us without the consent of 
the majority of the Conference ; " that no such consent had been given ; that 
though they highly venerated Mr. Wesley, and were willing to receive his 
advice, and preserve and promote our union with him, and our Methodist 
brethren in Europe, as far as the political interest of our country would au- 
thorize us; yet they could not give up their rights to any man on earth. 
And after a number of arguments to show the impropriety and impolicy of 
any man having the power to exercise such an uncontrollable and unlimited 
authority over us, as Mr. Wesley wished to do, and to prevent him from 
exercising this power in the present case, by virtue of his name standing at 
the head of the Minutes, they moved that it should be struck off. The vote 
was carried and his name was omitted. Mr. Wesley complained that we were 
ungrateful. We felt ourselves grieved that the good old man was hurt, and 
determined to give him every satisfaction in our power, consistent with our 
rights, and in 1789 the Conference consented that his name should be re- 
stored on the Minutes, in testimony of our union with and respect for him; 
but inserted in such a manner as to preclude him from exercising an uncon- 
stitutional power over us. * 

Dr. Coke, though at first disposed to indulge in public 
complaint, submitted with a good grace. Many thought that 
the shepherd of the Methodist flock had received a heavy 
blow in the house of his friends, and fears were entertained 
of a schism among the American Methodists. Later O'Kelly 
publicly charged that " after these things Francis took with 
him a few chosen men, and in a clandestine manner expelled 
John whose surname was Wesley from the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church." But Snethen amply vindicated Asbury 
against this attack. In his Journal, Coke says: 

*Rev. Thomas Morrell, in "Truth Discovered." 



The Conferences from 1785 to 1792. 



235 



Our painful contests, I trust, have produced the most indissoluble union 
between my brethren and me. We thoroughly perceived the mutual pu- 
rity of each other's intentions in respect to the points in dispute. We mu- 
tually yielded and mutually submitted, and the silken cords of love and af- 
fection were tied to the horns of the altar forever and ever. 

It is now easy to grasp the import of the certificate which 
Dr. Coke gave to this Conference. The embassador fell 
with his chief, the agent with his principal, the servant with 
his master. There is no evidence, known to the writer, that 
the Conference formally demanded this instrument: Coke, 
in a revulsion of feeling and exuberance of zeal, brought 
about by the Conference atmosphere in which he moved, 
probably made a voluntary tender of it, which the Confer- 
ence did not decline. The language of the document is 
that of personal surrender of privileges, hitherto exercised, 
rather than that of enforced restraint by a controlling trib- 
unal. Coke's language in his Journal, "We mutually 
yielded and mutually submitted" lends support to this view. 
When abroad he was to exercise no episcopal functions, 
since he could not have the latest advices as to the state of 
affairs in America and would be more or less subjected to 
alien influences. But when in America he was (1) to pre- 
side in the Conferences, (2) to ordain, and (3) to travel at 
large. But these embrace all the duties and privileges of a 
General Superintendent. He agreed to "use no other 
power," says Stevens, " when in the country than that of his 
Episcopal functions." * The Minutes placed him on a per- 
fect parity with Asbury when in the United States. " Who 
are the Superintendents of our Church for the United 
States? " the first question reads in 1787. " Thomas Coke 
(when present in the States) and Francis Asbury" is the 
answer. f Why then did Coke engage that he would exer- 
cise no other privilege when present in the United States? 
What privilege can be referred to ? Evidently the privilege 
of being the proposer, patron, and special champion of such 
measures as Mr. Wesley might seek to introduce under 
cover of the resolution of submission, together with the de- 



list. M. E. Ch., II. 496. f Minutes, ed. 1813, p. 62. 



236 To the Institution of the General Conference, 1792. 



cision of questions before the Conference by the Superin- 
tendents, as Wesley wished, instead of by a majority vote of 
the body.* Ware's testimony, cited above, is decisive on 
this latter point. That binding minute was rescinded, and 
Coke, to guarantee his loyalty, surrendered all functions he 
had been accustomed to exercise as Mr. Wesley's special 
envoy and personal representative. The Conference pro- 
tected itself by incorporating in the Minutes, as we have 
seen, the limitation springing out of Coke's agreement, and 
there can be no question that the year 1787 marks a great 
forward stride in home government for the American 
Church. The principle for which Asbury and the Confer- 
ence stood triumphed over that represented by Coke and 
Wesley: the binding minute was expunged never to be re- 
stored, and the Founder's name was temporarily left off the 
Minutes. Much has been written about the curtailment of 
Coke's " episcopal powers," by vote of the Conference, 
which is wide of the mark. Coke was as much a Bishop, 
when in America, after the adjournment at Baltimore in 
1787, as he had been before that Conference met. Both 
before and after he was as much a Bishop as Asbury. His 
name always appears first in the Minutes. "It was also 
my pleasure, when present," writes Asbury to Benson in 
1816, " always to give Dr. Coke the president's chair." f 
It is not in evidence that any vote of the Conference was 
taken in Coke's case. Jesse Lee says, " He acknowledged 
his faults, begged pardon, and promised not to meddle with 
our affairs again when he was out of the United States." 
Lee was not an admirer of Coke's and his testimony may be 
relied upon as none too favorable. He adds, " He then 
gave in writing a certificate to the same purpose" and cites 
the certificate in full. From him, so far as we are aware, 
all other writers have taken their copy of this document. It 

*As late as 1806, however, according to William Watters (Life, p. 105), 
in case of an equal division in the Conference, the Bishop exercised the 
right of giving the casting vote; and until 1808 the Bishops offered resolu- 
tions in the General Conference and discussed them. 

•j- Paine's Life of McKendree, II. 294. 



The Conferences from 1785 to ijg2. 



237 



must not be forgotten, finally, that Coke's position was pe- 
culiar and anomalous. There has never been another like 
it and, in the nature of the case, cannot be. Originally ap- 
pointed and ordained a Superintendent by Wesley, and con- 
tinuing to hold official relations to the British Conference as 
well as to the American, the position of Mr. Wesley's rep- 
resentative and vehicle of personal communication in Amer- 
ica was unique, and cannot be brought under any general 
rule. To undertake to do so is to ignore history and lose 
sight of material particulars amid the glitter of confusing 
generalities. Coke's relations to American Conferences 
will come up again, however, and a candid discussion and 
correct interpretation of later facts must not be anticipated. 

It remains to determine the character of this Conference 
of 1787. In view of Wesley's letter of instructions to Coke, 
the business transacted, and some other considerations, it is 
not surprising that the claim has been set up that this was a 
General Conference. " It is singular how plausible the ar- 
gument for the affirmative appears," remarks Stevens, " and 
yet how decisive that of the negative really is." We pre- 
sent a brief summary of the evidence for and against. 
Those who contend that the Baltimore session of 1787 was 
a General Conference bring forward the following proofs : 

(1) Mr. Wesley wrote to Dr. Coke, "I desire that you 
would appoint a General Conference of all our preachers in 
the United States, to meet at Baltimore on May 1, 1787." 

(2) The business to be transacted was the election of Su- 
perintendents, and, as a matter of fact, this Conference did 
canvass the names of Mr. Wesley's two nominees and reject 
them both. 

(3) Coke did invite the preachers by correspondence to 
attend a General Conference. 

(4) The Baltimore Conference, which had been appoint- 
ed the year before for Abingdon, Md., July 24, 1787, did, 
in fact, meet in Baltimore, May 1, the place and time pro- 
posed by Wesley. 

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, these state- 



238 To the Institution of the General Conference, 1792. 



ments of facts would have to be accepted as decisive proofs. 
But the contrary evidence is conclusive. Let us consider it. 

(1) The facts of Wesley's requesting and Coke's calling 
a General Conference and his changing the time and place 
of the Baltimore session are not denied. But, though Coke 
did these things, Asbury and the preachers dissented. As- 
bury received Coke " very coolly " on his arrival in Charles- 
ton, and the Conference itself rebuked him for his presump- 
tion. Moreover, Wesley's name was dropped from the 
Minutes, and the resolution of submission was expunged. 

(2) Neither Whatcoat nor Garrettson was elected. 

(3) " That many of the measures of the sessions of 1787- 
88 were of a general character," says Stevens, "appropri- 
ate only to the general action of the ministry, cannot be de- 
nied, but this fact can be easily explained. The first Gen- 
eral Conference (of 1784) assembled for the organization of 
the Church, and having accomplished its business, adjourned 
witnout providing for any subsequent session. General as 
well as local business went on as before. Measures of a 
general character were submitted to the successive Annual 
Conferences, and, at the final session of the year, were con- 
sidered to be determined by the majority of votes in all; the 
Minutes of all appeared still, in print, as the records of but 
one conference; and their enactments were from time to 
time inserted in the Discipline without reference to where 
or how they were enacted. Now it so happened that the 
Baltimore session for 1787 was the last session for that year, 
and therefore its reported doings were given as the results 
of all the sessions of the year; that is to say, not of a Gen- 
eral Conference, but of the Conferences generally. I am 
also of the opinion, from scattered allusions in contemporary 
books, that not a few important measures, applying to the 
whole Church, were decided by one or two of the principal 
Conferences, without reference to the remoter sessions." 

(4) Jesse Lee, the earliest historian of the Church, was 
present in 1787 and stationed in Baltimore; yet he does not 
speak of the session as a General Conference, but numbers 
it among the other annual sessions. 



The Conferences from i/Sj to IJQ2. 



2 39 



(5) Lee does distinctly name the session of 1792 as "the 
first regular General Conference." 

(6) James O'Kelly, when he withdrew from the Church, 
five years later, in his pamphlet against Asbury accused him 
of excessive "sharpness" toward Coke at Charleston. 
About fourteen years after the alleged General Conference, 
Asbury writes: "There was no sharpness at all upon my 
side with Dr. Coke, at Charleston, respecting the proposed 
General Conference, {which was afterward held in 1792.) 
I was fully convinced that nothing else would finish the un- 
happy business with O'Kelly, and that did finish it." 

Coke says, in his letter to the General Conference of 1808, 

There are few of you who can possibly recollect anything of what I am 
next going to add. Many of you were then only little children. We had 
at that time [1791] no regular General Conference. One only had been held 
in the year 1784. I had indeed, with great labor and fatigue, a few months 
before I wrote this letter to Bishop White, prevailed on James O'Kelly to 
submit to the decision of a General Conference. This Conference was to 
be held in about a year and a half after my departure from the States. And 
at this Conference, held, I think, the latter end of 1792, I proposed and ob- 
tained that great blessing to the American connection, a permanency for 
General Conferences, which were to be held at stated times. Previously to 
the holding of this Conference (except the general one held in 17S4) there 
were only small district meetings, excepting the council which was held at 
Cokesbury College either in 1791 or 1792. 

And here the case may be rested: the Baltimore Confer- 
ence of 1787 was not a General Conference, nor did one 
meet until 1792.* 

In 1787 the Discipline underwent a complete revision. 
For the first time it was arranged in sections under appro- 
priate heads. This was done by Bishop Asbury, with the 
aid, chiefly clerical, of John Dickins. As early as Nov. 27, 
1785, he says in his Journal, "For some time past, I had 
not been quite satisfied with the order and arrangement of 
our Form of Discipline; and, persuaded that it might be im- 
proved without difficulty, we accordingly set about it, and, 
during my confinement [with a disabled foot] in James' City, 
completed the work, arranging the subject matter thereof 



*The preceding arguments have been mainly condensed from Stevens. 



240 To the Institution of the General Conference, 1792. 



under their proper heads, divisions, and sections." April 
5, 1786, he writes, " Read our Form of Discipline in man- 
uscript, which brother Dickins has been preparing for the 
press." The publication was delayed, however, until May, 
1787, " probably with a view of obtaining the concurrence 
of Dr. Coke;" * but there is no evidence that it was submit- 
ted to the Baltimore Conference which met at that time. In 
this Discipline the superintendents were first called Bishops^ 
and from it the second question of the former Discipline, 
embracing the resolution of submission to Mr. Wesley, was 
omitted. This omission is proof that this Discipline was not 
published until after the Baltimore Conference of May, 1787, 
which took this action : the introduction of the title 6 ' bishop," 
without the sanction of this Conference, but for which Con- 
ference confirmation was subsequently asked, is proof that 
this edition of the Discipline, newly revised and arranged as 
it was, was not submitted to the inspection or approval of 
the Conference, but was published by authority of the Bish- 
ops. Asbury and Coke were hardly shorn of all espiscopal 
prerogatives, and an unfastidious Church, in whose memory 
the powers long exercised by General Assistants were still 
fresh, did not deny them these privileges. Jesse Lee says: 

The third question in the second section, and the answer, read thus: 
£>ues. Is there any other business to be done in Conference? Aus. The 
electing and ordaining of bishops, elders, and deacons. This was the first 
time that our superintendents ever gave themselves the title of bishops in 
the Minutes. They changed the title themselves, without the consent of 
the Conference ; and at the next Conference they asked the preachers if the 
word bishop might stand in the Minutes — seeing that it was a Scripture name, 
and the meaning of the word bishop was the same with that of superintend- 
ent. Some of the preachers opposed the alteration, and wished to retain the 
former title ; but a majority of the preachers agreed to let the word bishop 
remain ; and in the Annual Minutes for the next year the first question is,. 
Who are the bishops of our Church for the United States? In the third 
section of this Form of Discipline, and in the sixth page, it is said: We have 
constituted ourselves into an Episcopal Church under the direction of bishops* 
elders, deacons, and preachers, according to the form of ordination annexed to 
our prayer-book, and the regulations laid down in this Form of Discipline. 
From that time the name of bishop has been in common use among us, 
both in conversation and in writing/j" 

* Emory, History of Discipline, p. 81. f History of the Methodists, pp. 128, 129. 



The Conferences from ij8$ to ijg2. 



241 



The Minutes of 1787 retain the title " Superintendents;''* 
in 1788, the question is first asked, " Who are the Bishops 
of our Church for the United States?" The answer is, 
"Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury," the qualifying clause 
with regard to Coke, " when present in the States," being 
omitted. f This is fresh proof that the Discipline of 1787 was 
published after the Conference of that year: the " next Con- 
ference," referred to by Lee, which confirmed the change 
made by the Bishops in the Discipline, was the Conference 
of 1788. 

Referring to the eleven Conferences appointed for 1789, 
Lee says that " several of these Conferences were within 
thirty or forty miles of each other, which was pretty gener- 
ally disliked ; but at that time the bishop had the right of ap- 
pointing as many Conferences as he thought proper, and at 
such times and places as he judged best." % He gives us, 
also, the best account of the manner of the formal restora- 
tion of Mr. Wesley's name to the Minutes, in 1789, without 
the reenactment of the resolution of submission. 

As some persons had complained of our receding from a former engage- 
ment made by some of our preachers, that " during the life of Mr. Wesley, 
in matters belonging to Church government, they would obej r his com- 
mands," and as others had thought that we did not pay as much respect to 
Mr. Wesley as we ought, the bishops introduced a question in the Annual 
Minutes, which was as follows: J^hies. Who are the persons that exercise 
the episcopal office in the Methodist Church in Europe and America? Ans. 
John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury, by regular order and 
succession. The next question was asked differently from what it had ever 
been in any of the former Minutes, which stands thus : §>ues. Who had 
been elected by the unanimous suffrages of the General Conference to su- 
perintend the Methodist Connection in America? Ans. Thomas Coke and 
Francis Asbury. § 

Both Lee, as above, and Bangs give the clause, " by reg- 
ular order and succession," though it is not contained in 

*Ed. of 1813, p. 62. 

| Minutes, p. 69. Lee also says, " When the Minutes of this year were 
printed, the condition of Dr. Coke's being a bishop when in the United 
States," was left out. 

\ History of the Methodists, p. 140. 

§ Ibid., p. 142. 
16 



242 To the Institution of the General Confere7ice, 1792. 



the reprint of the Minutes in 1813. Mr. Tyerman follows 
them as noted above.* The Bishops doubtless framed the 
two questions, as Lee says, by which Mr. Wesley's name 
was restored, and his powers discriminated from their own, 
but the substance of them was passed upon by all the An- 
nual Conferences. Coke's testimony is decisive on this 
point: 

On the 9th of March [he says] we began our Conference in Georgia. 
Here we agreed (as we have ever since in each of the Conferences) that Mr. 
Wesley's name should be inserted at the head of our Small Annual Minutes 
and also in the Form of Discpline, — in Small Minutes, as the fountain of our 
episcopal office ; and in the Form of Discipline, as the father of the whole 
work, under the divine guidance. To this all the Conferences have cheer- 
fully and unanimously agreed. 

So Mr. Wesley's name stood in the American Minutes 
of 1789 and 1790:! before those of 1791 were issued the 
Founder of Methodism had joined the general assembly 
and church of the firstborn. 

The New York Conference of 1789 voted an address to 
President Washington, in recognition of the new federal 
constitution, and the first chief magistrate elected under it. 
Dickins and Morrell waited on Washington, and he designa- 
ted May 29 for the reception of the Bishops and the presen- 
tation of the Address. He had previously entertained them, 
as we have seen, under his own roof at Mount Vernon. 
Asbury 44 with great self-possession," says Morrell, 44 read 
the address in an impressive manner. The President read 
his reply with fluency and animation. They interchanged 
their respective addresses; and, after sitting a few minutes, 
we departed." In a few days, the other denominations fol- 
lowed this Methodist lead. 

There is nothing else in the action of the Annual Confer- 
ences down to the assembling of the first General Confer- 
ence in 1792 that affects the constitution or government of 
the Church sufficiently to demand notice in our history. 



* Page 16. f Ed. 181 3, pp. 77, 90. 



CHAPTER XIV. 



THE COUNCIL. 



THE need of a General Conference, equally with the dif- 
ficulties, apparently insuperable, in the way of conven- 
ing such an assembly, began to press heavily upon the 
Church. "If the early custom of carrying general measures 
from one conference to another, till all had acted upon them, 
still continued," remarks Stevens, " it had now become 
exceedingly inconvenient." * Well may this judicious his- 
torian express this doubt: it is highly probable that measures 
of prime importance or pressing urgency were sometimes 
determined upon by leading Conferences, occasionally by 
one such body, especially if the last of the year, or by the 
Superintendents themselves, acting on their own responsibil- 
ity. The general usage, however, was still to pass legisla- 
tion through all the Conferences. 

To meet the demands of the hour, the bishops — Bishop 
Asbury, in particular — devised the plan of 6 ' The Council," 
and laid it before the Conferences of 1789. This plan, after 
some debate and opposition, was adopted by a majority of 
the preachers, f as follows: 

1. Our bishops and presiding elders shall be the members of this Coun- 
cil; provided, that the members who form the Council be never fewer than 
nine. And if any unavoidable circumstance prevent the attendance of a 
presiding elder at the Council, he shall have authority to send another elder 
out of his own district to represent him; but the elder so sent by the absent- 
ing elder shall have no seat in the Council without the approbation of the 
bishop, or bishops, and presiding elders present. And if, after the above- 
mentioned provisions are complied with, any unavoidable circumstance or 
any contingencies reduce the number to less than nine, the bishop shall im- 
mediately summon such elders as do not preside, to complete the number. 

2. These shall have authority to mature everything that they shall judge 
expedient: (1) To preserve the general union. (2) To render and preserve 



*Hist. M. E. Ch., III. 12. fLee, Hist, of the Methodists, p. 149. 

(243) 



244 To the Institution of the General Conference, 1792. 



the external form of worship similar in all our societies through the continent. 
(3) To preserve the essentials of the Methodist doctrines and discipline pure 
and uncorrupted. (4) To correct all abuses and disorders; and, lastly, they 
are authorized to mature everything they may see necessary for the good 
of the Church, and for the promoting and improving our colleges and plan 
of education. 

3. Provided, nevertheless, that nothing shall be received as the resolu- 
tion of the Council, unless it be assented to unanimously by the Council; 
and nothing so assented to by the Council shall be binding in any district 
till it has been ag -eed upon by a majority of the Conference which is held 
for that district. 

4. The bishops shall have authority to summon the Council to meet at 
such times and places as they shall judge expedient. 

5. The first Council shall be held at Cokesbury, on the first day of next 
December [1789]. 

In this plan the title " presiding elder " occurs for the first 
time in the official records of our Church. It is used, also, in 
the Minutes of 1789,* doubtless to conform them to the lan- 
guage of the plan: the title then disappears from the Min- 
utes until 1797, as previously noticed. 

There were several capital and, as the event proved, fatal 
defects, in this scheme. The passage of such a measure 
through the Conferences is proof of Asbury's commanding 
influence in those bodies, rather than of his wisdom in devis- 
ing the plan. Its cardinal faults are these: (1) the require- 
ment of unanimous assent in the Council virtually gave 
Bishop Asbury — for Bishop Coke was not present at either of 
the sessions held — an absolute veto on all proposed legisla- 
tion for the Church; (2) the presiding elders, being the ap- 
pointees of the bishops, removable from office at their pleas- 
ure, were not representatives of the Conferences or of the 
Church, but the delegates of the episcopacy: the composi- 
tion of the Council was thus, for the most part, in the hands 
of Bishop Asbury alone; (3) the provision that the enact- 
ments of the Council should have the force of law only in 
those districts whose Conferences confirmed them, threat- 
ened the Connexion with speedy disunion and disintegra- 
tion, for, said Jesse Lee, who stoutly opposed the plan from 
the beginning, " if one district should agree to any impor- 



*Ed. of 181 3, pp. 81-84. 



The Council. 



2 45 



tant point, and another district should reject it, the union 
between the two districts would be broken, and in process 
of time our United Societies would be thrown into disor- 
der and confusion." Thus the Council, though apparently 
clothed with large powers, for so small a body, in reality 
could exercise but little, and that little for the destruction 
rather than the edification of the infant Church. Nullifica- 
tion was incorporated in the constitution, and even a useful 
measure could be rendered hurtful by the rejection of a single 
District — i. e., Annual — Conference, which would thereby 
create a difference of administration, if not positive schism, 
in the body ecclesiastic. The plan was as if each Annual 
Conference, at the present day, were empowered to confirm 
the legislation of our General Conference, before it could 
have legal force within the bounds of that Conference. 

Lee has preserved entire the Minutes of the first session, 
of which the chief points follow : 

The proceedings of the Bishop and Presiding Elders of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, in Council assembled at Baltimore, on the first day of 
December, 1789. 

The following members which formed the Council were present: Fran- 
cis Asbury, Bishop; Elders: Richard Ivey, Reuben Ellis, Edward Morris, 
James O'Kelly, Philip Bruce, Lemuel Green, Nelson Reid, Joseph Everett, 
John Dickins, James O. Cromwell, Freeborn Garrettson. 

After having spent one hour in prayer to Almighty God for his direction 
and blessing, they then unanimously agreed, that a General Conference of the 
bishops, ministers, and preachers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, on the 
Continent of America, would be attended with a variety of difficulties, with 
great expense and loss of time, as well as many inconveniencies to the work 
of God. And, as it is almost the unanimous judgment of the ministers and 
preachers that it is highly expedient there should be a general Council 
formed of the most experienced elders in the connection, who, for the fu- 
ture, being elected by ballot in every Conference, at the request of the 
bishop, shall be able to represent the several Conferences and districts in 
the United States of America, they therefore concluded that such a Council 
should be so appointed, and convened. The Council then proceeded to 
form the following constitution, to wit: 

The aforesaid Council, when assembled at the time and place appointed 
by the bishop, shall have power to mature and resolve on all things relative 
to the spiritual and temporal interests of the Church, viz.: 

1. To render the time and form of public worship as similar as possible 
through all their congregations. 



246 To the Institution of the General Conference, 1J92. 



2. To preserve the general union of the ministers, preachers, and people 
in the Methodist doctrine and discipline. ....... 

6. In the intervals of the Council, the bishop shall have power to act in 
all contingent occurrences relative to the printing business, or the educa- 
tion and economy of the college. 

7. Nine members, and no less, shall be competent to form a Council, 
which may proceed to business. 

8. No resolution shall be formed in such a Council without the consent 
of the bishop and two-thirds of the members present. 

After the Council had completed its own constitution, it 
unanimously proposed eight resolutions, of which the only 
one of sufficient importance to engage our attention is the 
first : 

Every resolution of the first Council shall be put to vote in each Confer- 
ence, and shall not be adopted unless it obtains a majority of the different 
Conferences. But every resolution which is received by a majority of the 
several Conferences shall be received by every member of each Conference. 

Here is a serious attempt to relieve the obvious difficulties 
and objections to which the original plan was exposed. The 
resolution, cited above, was doubtless intended to submit the 
items of the new constitution, adopted by the Council itself, 
to the confirmation of the District, or Annual, Conferences, 
since the ''resolutions of the first Council" are specially 
mentioned. 

Whether this resolution itself was submitted to the Con- 
ferences, under the condition of the original plan, that 
nothing " shall be binding in any district till it has been 
agreed upon by a majority of the Conference " for that dis- 
trict, is more than doubtful. This was a source of addition- 
al trouble, for Lee complains: 

When the Council was first proposed, the preachers in each district were 
to have the power to reject or retain the measures which had been adopted 
by the Council. But when the proceedings of the Council came out, they 
had changed the plan, and determined that if a majority of the preachers in 
the different districts should approve of the proceedings of the Council, it 
should then be binding on every preacher in each district. 

Thus the Council had made an alteration for the better, 
but the Conferences doubted its power to do so. The Bish- 
op's veto is expressly retained; but the requirement of unan- 
imous action in the Council is altered to a two-thirds majori- 



The Council. 



247 



ty. Moreover, the composition of the body is made depend- 
ent on election by the Conferences. These were vital con- 
cessions and improvements, necessary even to an experimen- 
tal working of the plan. They indicate the purity of Bishop 
Asbury's motives and his willingness to reach any accommo- 
dation with the Conferences and preachers, which would se- 
cure the benefits of a general and uniform government for 
the Connexion. He regarded the Council as in part a de- 
vice for relieving his responsibilities, increasing his amena- 
bility, and curtailing his powers. 

Can you think it right that the Bishops or Bishop — as the chief lies upon 
myself — should have the sole government of our college and schools, [he 
writes to Morrell, soon after the adjournment of the first Council,] unaided 
by the counsel of the wisest and most able of our brethren, whom I hope the 
wisdom of the Conferences will elect? Ought he not to try to be guarded 
better and have a Council, as so many witnesses to his probity and transac- 
tions, and a security that he may not run headlong to make the community 
insolvent? The profits arising from printing, if that work is prudently con- 
ducted, will, ere long, make one thousand per year. We have told the pub- 
lic how these profits shall be applied, and they expect that we not only 
mean, but will do, what we promise. Now as the train of this was laid by 
me, it ought not to be and cannot be taken out of my hands altogether as 
the Bishop of the Church — as in some sense to many the father of the Con- 
nection, unless it can be proved I have done wickedly. As to acting weak- 
ly, I may have done so. Therefore I want good and frequent counsel. I 
can ask the Conferences, but I cannot drag the business twelve or thirteen 
times through Conferences; that is enough to tire the spirit of Moses and 
Job. 

From his Journal we learn that in this first session, Ivey 
represented the Georgia District or Conference; Ellis, the 
South Carolina; Morris, the North Carolina; Bruce, the 
North Virginia; O'Kelly, the South Virginia; Green, the 
Ohio; Reid, the Western Shore of Maryland; Everett, the 
Eastern Shore ; Dickins, Pennsylvania; Cromwell, Jersey; 
and Garrettson, New York. Thus the Council was truly 
representative and connexional, and Asbury adds, "A spirit 
of union pervaded the whole body; producing blessed ef- 
fects and fruits." * 

Jesse Lee, unaware of these proposed reforms, emanating 



* Journal, II. 59: Dec. 4, 1789. 



248 To the Institution of the General Conference, 1J92. 



from the Council itself, addressed a letter to the body point- 
ing out the errors and evils of the plan. He received an of- 
ficial reply, dated 4 4 In Council, Baltimore, December 7, 

i 7 8 9 :" 

Very Dear Brother: We are both grieved and surprised to find that 
jou make so many objections to the very fundamentals of Methodism. But 
we consider your want of experience in many things, and therefore put the 
best construction on your intention. You are acquainted with the discipline 
of the Methodist Church: if you can quietly labor among us under our disci- 
pline and rules, we cheerfully retain you as our brother and fellow-laborer, 
and remain yours in sincere affection.* 

Attached to this epistle was the signature of James O 'Kel- 
ly, as one of the members of the Council. Scarcely had he re- 
turned from the session, however, before he began a course of 
determined and systematic opposition to Asbury and the Coun- 
cil. He had been ordained elder at the Christmas Confer- 
ence, and from that time had continued without interruption 
on the South Virginia District: as a leader his position and 
influence were hardly inferior to that of Asbury himself. 
He charged, 44 That Francis refused two worthy ministers a 
seat in Council in his absolute manner, without rendering 
any reason for such conduct;" to which Nicholas Snethen 
replied, 44 Mr. Asbury asked leave of the District Confer- 
ences to meet all the presiding elders in Council at Balti- 
more. Two preachers, it appears, who were not presiding 
elders, asked leave to sit in the Council, but Mr. A. had no 
authority to grant them their request." January 12, 1790, 
Asbury writes : 

I received a letter from the presiding elder of this district, James O'Kel- 
ly: he makes heavy complaints of my power, and bids me stop for one 
year, or he must use his influence against me — power! power! there is not 
a vote given in a Conference in which the presiding elder has not greatly 
the advantage of me. . . . But who has the power to lay an embargo on 
me, and to make of none effect the decision of all the Conferences of the 
union ? -f 

The Council and its legislation came before the Confer- 
ences of 1790. February 15, Asbury is at the South Caro- 
lina Conference, and records, 44 The business of the Coun- 



*Dr. L. M. Lee, Life and Times of Jesse Lee, p. 282. ^Journal, II. 62. 



The Council. 



cil came before us; and it was determined that the concerns 
of the college and the printing should be left with the Coun- 
cil to act decisively upon ; but that no new canons should be 
made, nor the old altered, without the consent of the Con- 
ference." * June i, he is holding the North Carolina Con- 
ference, and says, " Our business was much matured, the 
critical concern of the Council understood, and the plan, 
with its amendments [proposed by the Council] adopted."! 
At the Virginia Conference, June 16, the Bishop records, 
"All was peace until the Council was mentioned. The 
young men appear to be entirely under the influence of the 
elders, and turned it out of doors. I was weary and felt 
but little freedom to speak on the subject. The business is 
to be explained to every preacher; and then it must be car- 
ried through the Conferences twenty-four times; t. e., 
through all the Conferences for two years." { August 26, 
he says, "To conciliate the minds of our brethren in the 
south district of Virginia, who are restless about the Coun- 
cil, I wrote their leader [O'Kelly] informing him, * that I 
would take my seat in council as another member;' and, in 
that point, at least, waive the claims of Episcopacy; — yea, I 
would lie down and be trodden upon, rather than knowingly 
injure one soul." § September 14, "We held our Confer- 
ence for the eastern shore of Maryland and Delaware. One 
or two of our brethren felt the Virginia fire about the ques- 
tion of the Council, but all things came into order and the 
Council obtained." || September 23, "The Conference 
began in poor Pennsylvania district. ... I am weak 
and have been busy, and am not animated by the hope of 
doing good here; I have therefore been silent the whole 
week." If He did not have the heart even to mention the 
Council. But at the New Jersey Conference, at Burling- 
ton, September 28, " Harmony has prevailed and the Coun- 
cil has been unanimously adopted." ** 



* Journal, II. 65. f Ibid ; n - 7 6 - X Ihid ; n - 7 6 - § Ibid n H. 82. || Ibid., II. 83. 
\ Ibid., IL83. ** Mia., 1 1 . 84. 



250 To the Institution of the General Conference, 1792. 



In O 'Kelly's district was a young preacher, William Mc- 
Kendree by name. September 27, 1790, his presiding elder 
held his quarterly meeting. 6 6 We had a melting time at sacra- 
ment," saysMcKendree,in his diary, "and then the poor mis- 
erable Council took up all our time until ten o' clock at night. ' ' * 
Early in November, nearly a month before the second ses- 
sion of the Council, which he did not attend, O'Kelly 
called an irregular meeting of the preachers of his district. 
" On Thursday, Nov. 4," saysMcKendree, " met the preach- 
ers in conference at Brother Young's; twenty-two preachers 
present, and by nine o'clock agreed to send no member to 
Council, but stand as we are until next Conference." This 
Conference session had been convened by "proclamation 
of Mr. O'Kelly, inviting the preachers to meet in Mecklen- 
burg." On the second day of this called Conference, a 
document was approved and directed to be forwarded to the 
Council, "thus placing the Virginia Conference," adds 
Bishop Paine, " almost in the position of seceders." f 

Lee has carefully preserved the Minutes of the second 
session of the Council, also, from which a brief extract may 
embody the important points: 

Minutes, taken at a Council of the Bishop, and Delegated Elders of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, held at Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, 
December i, 1790. 

Q. What members are present? A. Francis Asbury, bishop: Freeborn 
Garrettson, Francis Poythress, Nelson Reid, John Dickins, Philip Bruce, 
Isaac Smith, Thomas Bowen, James O. Cromwell, Joseph Everett, and 
Charles Connaway. 

Q. What power do the Council consider themselves invested with by 
their electors? A. First they unanimously consider themselves invested 
with full power to act decisively in all temporal matters. And secondly, to 
recommend to the several Conferences any new canons, or alterations to 
be made in any old ones. 

Q. When and where shall the next Council be held? A. At Cokesbury 
College or Baltimore, on the istday of December, 1792. 

" But," continues Lee, " their proceedings gave such dis- 
satisfaction to our Connexion in general, and to some of the 
traveling preachers in particular, that they were forced to 



* Paine, Life of McKendree, I. 113. f Ibid., I. 128. 



The Council. 



abandon the plan; • and there has never since been a 
meeting of the kind." * 

Lee tells us that in his letter to the Council at its first ses- 
sion he " contended for a General Conference, which plan 
was disapproved of by all the Council." His biographer 
says, "Notwithstanding the unceremonious rejection of his 
letter and himself, by the Council of 1789, he maintained his 
position and his principles; and in July, 1791, submitted a 
plan for a delegated General Conference in 1792 to Bishop 
Asbury. . . . There may have been an earlier advocate 
of such a measure, but we have not discovered it." f 44 This 
day," writes Asbury, July 7, 1791, "Jesse Lee put a paper 
into my hand proposing the election of not less than two, nor 
more than four preachers from each Conference, to form a 
General Conference in Baltimore, in December, 1792, to be 
continued annually." % Stevens concedes that Lee is " en- 
titled to the credit of being the author of the change, which, 
though resisted for sixteen years, was at last forced upon 
the body in 1808 by irresistible necessity." § At that time, 
however, Lee's persistent opposition on minor points en- 
dangered the passage of the whole measure. 

But Mr. O' Kelly also contributed, in his way, towards se- 
curing a General Conference, as the only sufficient remedy 
for the ills that were then afflicting the Church. He had 
written to Dr. Coke in England, and had created a tempo- 
rary alienation, once more, between the two Superintendents. 
44 It is nothing strange," says Snethen, 44 that Dr. Coke 
should be affected by Mr. O' Kelly's representation of Mr. 
Asbury' s conduct; and finding Mr. Asbury averse to a 
General Conference, it is not surprising that the Doctor 
should insist upon Mr. O'Kelly's request being granted. A 
few sharp words passed between the two Bishops on this 

*For Lee's entire account, embracing full minutes of both sessions, see 
Hist, of Meth., pp. 150-159. 

•f-Dr. L. M. Lee, Life of Jesse Lee, pp. 270, 271. 
J Journal, II. no. 
§Hist. M. E. Ch., III. 15. 



252 To the Institution of the General Conference, IJQ2. 



occasion, but the heat was over in a moment." * Snethen 
adds, 44 Mr. Asbury submitted to a General Conference for 
fear of a division in the Connexion. Like the true mother, 
he could not bear the idea of dividing the living child." 
Asbury's own account harmonizes with Snethen's. Febru- 
ary 23, 1791, he says: " Long-looked-for Doctor Coke came 
to town [Charleston]. He had been shipwrecked off Edis- 
to. I found the Doctor's sentiments with regard to the 
Council quite changed. James O'Kelly's letters had 
reached London. I felt perfectly calm, and acceded to a 
General Conference for the sake of peace." t Although it 
was expected that some would attempt to revive the Council 
at the General Conference, it was not so much as men- 
tioned. All ''showed a disposition," says Lee, "to drop 
the Council, and all things belonging thereto." Indeed 
Bishop Asbury " requested that the name of the Council 
might not be mentioned in the Conference." It was dead, 
and Jesse Lee, who had done so much to kill it, was pres- 
ent at its burial. 44 His triumph had come ; and it was com- 
plete. He enjoyed it in silence." % 

One act, commonly attributed to the Council, has long 
survived it. The General Rules, as framed by Mr. Wesley, 
contained nothing with regard to slavery. The Discipline 
of 1789 contains, for the first time, a general rule on this 
subject, in this language: 44 The buying or selling the 
bodies and souls of men, women, or children, with an inten- 
tion to enslave them." § Of this interpolation, a competent 
authority says: 44 No Conference put it there, and no editor 
or printer ever confessed doing it. It happened in the time 
of the Council, the limit of whose powers was not well de- 
fined, in its own estimation." || 

* Reply to O'Kelly. 
| Journal, II. 95. 

JDr. L. M. Lee's Life of Jesse Lee, p. 271. 

§ Emory, Hist, of the Discipline, pp. 180, 181; Sherman, Hist, of the 
Discipline, p. 114. 

|| McTyeire, History of Methodism, pp. 403, 404. Bishop Harris (Pow- 
ers of the General Conference, p. 64, ed. i860) mistakenly asserts that this 
General Rule was enacted in 1784 by the Christmas Conference. 



The Council. 



2 53 



The last question in the Minutes of 1792 is this, " When 
and where shall the next Conferences be held?" Twenty 
Annual Conferences are appointed; but before the an- 
nouncement of their times and places, this entry is made: 
"General Conference, November 1, 1792."* Thus this 
General Conference was appointed by authority of the An- 
nual Conferences. 

In his communication to the General Conference of 1808, 
explanatory of his letter to Bishop White in 1791, Bishop 
Coke expresses his alarm for the unity and stability of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, caused by O'Kelly's schis- 
matic Conference and the widespread disaffection at this 
time on account of the Council and its doings, and urges 
these facts in extenuation of his confidential overture to Bish- 
op White. He says: 

I had indeed, with great labor and fatigue, a few months before I wrote 
this letter to Bishop White, prevailed on James O'Kelly, and the thirty-six 
traveling preachers who had withdrawn with him from all connection with 
Bishop Asbury, to submit to the decision of a General Conference. This 
Conference was to be held in about a year and a half after my departure 
from the States. And at this Conference, held I think the latter end of 
1792, I proposed and obtained that great blessing to the American Connec- 
tion — a permanency for General Conferences, which were to be held at 
stated times. . . . The society as such, taken as an aggregate, was al- 
most like a rope of sand. I longed to see matters on a footing likely to be 
permanent. Bishop Asbury did the same; and it was that view of things, I 
doubt not, which led Bishop Asbury, the year before, to call and endeavor 
to establish a regular Council, who were to meet him annually at Cokes- 
bury. For this point I differed in sentiment from my venerable brother. 

In truth, Coke, O'Kelly, and Lee, may fairly claim the 
honors of securing the session of the first Quadrennial Gen- 
eral Conference. It is evident that the Conference and the 
Council were competing solutions of the existing legislative 
difficulties of the Church. Snethen declares that " the in- 
stant a General Conference was acceded to, the Council was 
superseded." Asbury was the author and patron of the lat- 
ter. Lee and O'Kelly — the former, loyally and legitimately, 
and the latter, schismatically and insidiously — became its 



* Minutes, ed. of 1813, p. 119. 



254 To the Institution of the General Conference, 1792. 



chief opponents. O'Kelly enlisted the cooperation of Coke, 
and he, by becoming the champion of a General Confer- 
ence, must be allowed to have been the agent who brought 
about at once the destruction of the Council and the inau- 
guration of the Conference. At the General Conference of 
1792, he was the father of the measure which incorporated 
the General Conference permanently in the government of 
the Church. Asbury had been, indeed, in 1784, the pro- 
poser of the Christmas Conference. Then, and again in 
1787, he successfully interposed the authority of the Amer- 
ican itinerants between himself and Mr. Wesley. But he 
does not seem, at this juncture, to have been favorable to a 
permanency of General Conferences, or even to a repeti- 
tion in 1792 of the experiment of 1784. The Council was 
his personal measure, to which he appears to have been ar- 
dently attached. In this, we need not asperse his motives. 
But the inherent weaknesses and evils of the scheme doomed 
it from the beginning. As a consequence, Coke, Lee, and 
O'Kelly secured a General Conference. 



BOOK V. 



The Quadrennial General Conferences to the 
Institution of the Delegated 
General Conference. 

I. The General Conference of 1792. 
II. The General Conference of 1796. 

III. The General Conferences of 1800 and 1804. 

IV. The General Conference of 1808. 

(255) 



CHAPTER XV. 



THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1 792. 



NO official Minutes of this Conference are extant. " The 
Minutes of the General Conference for 1792," says 
Dr. McClintock, "were never printed to my knowledge, 
nor can I find the original copy." * This is confirmed by 
Jesse Lee, who says in his History: " The proceedings of 
that Conference were not published in separate Minutes, but 
the alterations were entered at their proper places, and pub- 
lished in the next edition of the Form of Discipline." t 
The title of this eighth edition is, " The Doctrine and Disci- 
pline of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, re- 
vised and approved at the General Conference held at Bal- 
timore, in the State of Maryland, in November, 1792: in 
which Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury presided. 1 This 
Discipline, Lee's History, Coke's and Asbury's Journals, 
together with the reminiscences of Ware, Garrettson, and 
Colbert, are our sole, but sufficient, sources, for the transac- 
tions of this First Quadrennial General Conference. 
The attendance was large. Lee says that 

Our preachers who had been received into full connection came togethei* 
from all parts of the United States where we had any circuits formed, with 
an expectation that something of great importance would take place in the 
Connection in consequence of that Conference. The preachers generally 
thought that in all probability there would never be another Conference of 
that kind, at which all the preachers in connection might attend. The work 
was spreading through all the United States and the different Territories, 
and was likely to increase more and more, so that it was generally thought 
that this Conference would adopt some permanent regulations which would 
prevent the preachers in future from coming together in a General Confer- 
ence. 

::: Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 4. 

fin reply to some inquiries of Bishop Morris, in the Christian Advocate and Journal, in 
1858, F. S. De Hass says, " We are happy to say that the Minutes are not entirely lost, and at 
some future day we may give the Minutes of these two important Conferences in full." So far 
as known, he has never done so, and as one of the "two important Conferences" is an alleged 
General Conference in 17S8, we may despair of Mr. De Hass's possessing any Minutes of 1792. 

% Emory, Hist, of Discipline, p. 88. 

17 (257) 



258 The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



Bishop Coke was just in time. He arrived in Baltimore 
at 9 p.m., Wednesday, October 31: the next morning the 
General Conference convened. Mr. Asbury and the preach- 
ers 44 had almost given me up," he writes. "Whilst we 
were sitting in the room at Mr. Rogers', " says Asbury, 44 in 
came Dr. Coke, of whose arrival we had not heard, and 
whom we embraced in great love." * 

The first day was consumed in the adoption of rules of 
order, a precedent faithfully followed ever since. One of the 
regulations was, "It shall take two thirds of all the mem- 
bers of the Conference to make a new rule [of Discipline], 
or abolish an old one; but a majority may alter or amend 
any rule." A business committee was appointed to mature 
and bring forward measures for the action of the Conference, 
with the idea of saving time, but, as its debates were re- 
peated on the floor of the House, it was found useless, and 
first enlarged, and then dismissed; when "any preacher," 
says Lee, " was at liberty to bring forward any motion." 
A rule of debate was, 44 That each person, if he choose, 
shall have liberty to speak three times on each motion." 

On the second day, Friday, O'Kelly introduced his his- 
toric resolution, radically modifying the appointing power 
of the Bishops, and indirectly reflecting on Asbury's admin- 
istration. It was framed in these words: 

After the bishop appoints the preachers at Conference to their several 
circuits, if any one think himself injured by the appointment, he shall have 
liberty to appeal to the Conference and state his objections; and if the Con- 
ference approve his objections, the bishop shall appoint him to another cir- 
cuit.^ 

44 I felt awful at the General Conference," writes Asbury, 
4 4 my power to station the preachers without an appeal, was 
much debated, but finally carried by a very large majority. 
Perhaps a new bishop, new Conference, and new laws, 
would have better pleased some. . . . Some individuals 
among the preachers having their jealousies about my influ- 
ence in the Conference, I gave the matter wholly up to them, 



* Journal, II. 146: Oct. 31 1792. |Lee, Hist, of the Methodists, p. 178. 



The General Conference 0/1792. 



259 



and to Dr. Coke, who presided: meantime I sent them the 
following letter: 

"My Dear Brethren: Let my absence give you no pain — Dr. Coke 
presides. I am happily excused from assisting to make laws by which my- 
self am to be governed: I have only to obey and execute. I am happy in 
the consideration that I never stationed a preacher through enmity or as a 
punishment. I have acted for the glory of God, the good of the people, 
and to promote the usefulness of the preachers. Are you sure that, if you 
please yourselves, the people will be as fully satisfied? They often say, 
'Let us have such a preacher;' and sometimes, 'We will not have such a 
preacher — we will sooner pay him to stay at home.' Perhaps I must 
say, ' His appeal forced him upon you.' I am one — ye are many. Iam as 
willing to serve you as ever. I want not to sit in any man's way. I scorn 
to solicit votes : I am a very trembling poor creature to bear pi-aise or dis- 
praise. Speak your minds freely; but remember, you are only making 
laws for the present time: it may be, that as in some other things, so in this, 
a future day may give you further light. 

" I am yours, etc., Francis Asbury."* 

Under the presidency of Coke, therefore, with Asbury 
delicately retiring from the Conference room, and ill at his 
lodgings, the first great General Conference debate, on a 
point vital to episcopacy and itinerancy, proceeded. It was 
led by O 'Kelly, Ivey, Hull, Garrettson, and Swift, speaking 
for the adoption of the resolution, and by Willis, Lee, Mor- 
rell, Everett, and Reed in opposition.! Lee declares, " the 
arguments, for and against the proposal, were weighty and 
handled in a masterly manner. There never had been a 
subject before us that so fully called forth all the strength 
of the preachers." He gives our only outline of the parlia- 
mentary proceedings : 

A large majority appeared at first to be in favor of the motion. But at 
last John Dickins moved to divide the question thus: i. Shall the bishop 
appoint the preachers to the circuits? 2. Shall a preacher be allowed an 
appeal? After some debate the dividing of the question was carried. The 
first question being put, it was carried without a dissenting voice. But 
when we came to the second question, " Shall a preacher be allowed an ap- 
peal?" there was a difficulty started, whether this was to be considered as a 
new rule, or only an amendment of an old one. If it was a new rule, it 
would take two-thirds of the votes to carry it. After a considerable debate 
it was agreed by vote that it was only an amendment of an old rule. Of 
course after all these lengthy debates we were just where we began, and 



* Journal, II. 146, 147. f Colbert's Journal 



260 The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



had to take up the question as it was proposed at first. By dividing the ques- 
tion, and then coming back to where we were at first, we were kept on the 
subject, called the Appeal, for two or three days. On Monday we began 
the debate afresh, and continued it through the day; and at night we went 
to Otterbein's church, and again continued it till near bedtime, when the 
vote was taken, and the motion was lost by a large majority. 

The Sunday intervening was a high day. In the morn- 
ing Coke preached a ' 4 delightful sermon" on the Witness 
of the Spirit; in the afternoon O'Kelly discoursed on "Lord, 
increase our faith;" Henry Willis closed at night with an 
appropriate text from the Psalms.* 

As Lee supplies us with the parliamentary details of the 
debate, so Thomas Ware, who was a member of the Con- 
ference, furnishes us with a resume of the arguments em- 
ployed : 

Had O'Kelly's proposition been differently managed it might possibly 
have been carried. For myself, at first I did not see anything very objec- 
tionable in it; but when it came to be debated, I very much disliked the 
spirit of those who advocated it, and wondered at the severity in which the 
movers, and others who spoke in favor of it, indulged in the course of their 
remarks. Some of them said that it was a shame for a man to accept of such 
a lordship, much more to claim it; and that they who would submit to this 
absolute dominion must forfeit all claims to freedom, and ought to have 
their ears bored through with an awl, and to be fastened to their master's 
door and become slaves for life. One said that to be denied such an appeal 
was an insult to his understanding, and a species of tyranny to which others 
might submit if they chose, but for his part he must be excused for saying 
he could not. The advocates of the other side were more dispassionate and 
argumentative. They urged that Wesley, the father of the Methodist fami- 
ly, had devised the plan, and deemed it essential for the preservation of the 
itinerancy. They said that, according to the showing of O'Kelly, Wesley, 
if he were alive, ought to blush, for he claimed the right to station the 
preachers to the day of his death. The appeal, it was argued, was rendered 
impracticable on account of the many serious difficulties with which it was 
encumbered. Should one preacher appeal, and the conference say his ap- 
pointment should be altered, the bishop must remove some other one to 
make him room ; in which case the other might complain and appeal in his 
turn ; and then again the first might appeal from the new appointment, or 
others whose appointments these successive alterations might interrupt. 

O'Kelly, on the defeat of his measure, at once abandoned 
his seat in the Conference and his place among the Metho- 
dists. Garrettson, who had been with O'Feliy in the pro- 



* Colbert's Journal. 



The General Conference of 1J92. 



261 



posed reform, was appointed on a committee to wait on him 
and a few other recalcitrants, to urge them to resume their 
seats. 44 O' Kelly's distress was so great," he says, 44 on 
account of the late decision, that he informed us by letter 
that he no longer considered himself one of us. This gave 
great grief to the whole Conference." But the committee's 
labors were unavailing. Lee says: 

I stood and looked after them as they went off, and observed to one of 
the preachers that I was sorry to see the old man go off in that way, for 
I was persuaded he would not be quiet long, but would try to be head of 
some party. . . . So it was, James O'Kelly never more united with the 
Methodists. 

Among those who left with him was William McKendree, 
who 44 obtained liberty of the Conference to return home." 
His whole ministerial life had been passed in O' Kelly's 
district; they were traveling companions to the General 
Conference; they lodged together there, and 44 their room 
became the place for the meeting of Mr. O' Kelly's discon- 
tented friends." Many confused consultations occurred 
among the travelers by the way, until the old gentleman and 
his youthful -protege pursued their journey homewards 
alone. O'Kelly then fully unfolded his scheme to have 
44 a republican, no-slavery, glorious Church! Bishop As- 
bury was a pope ; the General Conference was a revolution- 
ary body; the Bishop and his creatures were working the 
ruin of the Church to gratify their pride and ambition." * 

Bishop Asbury met the Virginia Conference at Manches- 
ter, November 26, eleven days after the adjournment of the 
General Conference. Christmas day, 1791, he had or- 
dained William McKendree, elder :f at the Manchester 
Conference, the young man 44 sent him his resignation in 
writing," % respectfully declining appointment as a Metho- 
dist preacher. He soon afterward, however, accepted an 
invitation to travel with Bishop Asbury. They calmly and 

* Paine, Life of McKendree, I. 138, 139. 

fThe parchment to this effect is in the possession of the writer, together 
with those of his ordination as deacon and bishop. 
J Journal, II. 148. 



262 The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



fully discussed the recent upheavals, and the better influ- 
ence ended in McKendree's reclamation. 

It was only a month's suspension of an itinerant ministry which ended 
only with his useful and holy life. This shaking up, this honest doubt, led 
him to study the whole subject closely, and McKendree became the consti- 
tutional expounder of Methodism. He mastered the philosophy as well as 
the details of its government, and was prepared, at a future crisis, to stand 
in the breach and save it against a host of strong men.* 

Of O'Kelly, Bishop Asbury writes to Morrell, after the 
adjournment of the General Conference: 

I believe now nothing short of being an episcopos was his first aim. His 
second was to make the Council independent of the Bishop and General 
Conference, if they would canonize his writings. This could not be done. 
His next step was with the authority of a pope to forbid me, by letter, to go 
one step farther with the Council, after carrying it once around the conti- 
nent and through the first Council, which ordered me to go round and know 
the minds of the brethren. His following step was to write against me to 
Mr. Wesley, who he knew was disaffected to me, because I did not merely 
force the American Conference to accede to Mr. Wesley's appointment of 
Brother Whatcoat, which I did submit to Dr. Coke only for peace with our 
old father.| How moved he then to make himself independent of me and 
the general Connection, and dragged in the little doctor, whom, a little be- 
fore, he would have banished from the continent. Then he stipulated with 
me through the doctor to let him stay in that station, and consented to leave 
the decision to a General Conference, and when the decision went against 
him, went away. 

In the eight years since the Christmas Conference, the 
"Form of Discipline had been changed and altered in so 
many particulars," remarks Lee, "and the business of the 
Council had thrown the Connection into such confusion 
that we thought proper at this Conference to take under 
consideration the greater part of the Form of Discipline, and 
either abolish, establish, or change the rules." % The sec- 
tions were distributed into three chapters: the first, includ- 
ing twenty-six sections, related to the ministry; the second, 

* McTveire, Hist, of Methodism, p. 413. 

tCoke testifies: "When T. Coke and Mr. Asbury met in Charleston, T. 
Coke informed him that Mr. Wesley had appointed Richard Whatcoat as a 
joint Superintendent, and Mr. Asbury acquiesced in the appointment. T. 
Coke proposed the appointment to the Virginia Conference, and, to his 
great pain and disappointment, James O'Kelly most strenuously opposed it." 

JCf. Asbury 's Journal, II. 147. 



The General Conference of 1792. 



263 



including eight sections, to the membership; and the third, 
including ten sections, to temporal economy, with the doc- 
trinal tracts and Offices.* In their address, the Bishops say, 
" We think ourselves obliged frequently to view and review 
the whole order of our Church, always aiming at perfection, 
standing on the shoulders of those who have lived before us, 
and taking advantage of our former selves." 

The revision of the Discipline began Tuesday morning, 
November 6,t immediately after the decisive vote on O'Kel- 
ly's resolution at Otterbein's Church the preceding evening. 
It was determined that another General Conference should 
be held four years later, and thus this body became the per- 
mament organ of connexional government in American 
Methodism. As a mass convention of the entire traveling 
ministry its powers were general, supreme, and final. The 
Conference of 1796 was to be composed of " all the travel- 
ing preachers who shall be in full connection at the time of 
holding the Conference." Thus an itinerant of two years' 
standing was eligible to a seat. But it was found necessary 
gradually to decrease the membership by successive restric- 
tions. In 1800, each member must " have traveled four 
years;" and in 1804 it was provided that these four years 
should date from the time of reception on trial by an An- 
nual Conference, thus cutting off any antecedent years of 
employment as a " supply" under the elder. % In 1808 the 
Delegated General Conference was determined upon. 

The District Conferences are appointed to be held annu- 
ally, the time to be fixed by the bishop, and the Conference 
to include " not fewer than three, nor more than twelve " 
circuits. The germ of the Annual Conference, composed 
of many districts, appears, however, in this, that the bishop 
is " authorized to unite two or more districts together," 
provided the resulting Conference does not exceed the pre- 
scribed number of circuits. The order of business includes 
eighteen questions. These Annual Conferences are called 



* Emory, Hist, of Discipline, p. 84. -j- Colbert's Journal. 

J Emory, Hist, of Discipline, p. in. 



264 The Quadrennial General Conferences. 

District Conferences throughout the Discipline of 1792, but 
never afterward. From 1820 to 1836, however, this name 
was applied to the conferences of local preachers for each 
presiding elder's district. In 1796, the "yearly confer- 
ences" were reduced to six, each including several districts, 
and their boundaries were fixed for the first time by the 
General Conference. 

It is expressly determined that, in future, a bishop shall 
be constituted " by the election of the General Conference, 
and the laying on of hands," etc. Thus this business is re- 
moved permanently from the province of the yearly confer- 
ences, and the difficulties of 1787, when some Conferences 
concurred, and others refused concurrence, in Whatcoat's 
nomination, are provided against. The Bishops are made 
amenable to the General Conference for their conduct, and 
provision is also made for the trial of an immoral bishop in 
the interval of the General Conference. 

In 1792 the office and title of presiding elder appear for 
the first time in the Discipline. " Such an order of elders," 
says Lee, "had never been regularly established before. 
They had been appointed by the bishop for several years; 
but it was a doubt in the mind of the preachers whether such 
power belonged to him. The General Conference now de- 
termined that there should be presiding elders, and that 
they should be chosen, stationed, and changed by the 
bishop," provided no elder should preside in the same dis- 
trict more than four years successively.* The solemnity 
and dignity of their ordination, together with the smallness 
of their number and the commanding influence which, in 
most instances, they speedily acquired in their districts, gave 
rise to a doubt of the bishop's power to control or remove 
them. O'Kelly's case probably influenced the General 
Conference decisively in its present action. He had moved 
" to make himself independent of Asbury and the general 
Connection" and had "stipulated" with Asbury, through 
Dr. Coke, " to let him stay in that station;" but had " con- 

* See, also, Emory, Hist, of Discipline, pp. 126, 127. 



The General Conference 0/1792. 



265 



sented to leave the decision to a General Conference." 
He had traveled the same district ever since his ordination 
in 1784, and had been stationed in that region for some 
years before. The disadvantages in his case doubtless led 
the General Conference to place the presiding elder, like 
other preachers, at the disposal of the bishops, to constitute 
him, in a special sense, the bishop's deputy and representa- 
tive, and to limit his term of office in a given district. The 
duties of this officer have been before enumerated. " If the 
episcopate has been the right arm," says Stevens, " the pre- 
siding eldership has been the left arm of the Church's dis- 
ciplinary administration." 

Provision was made for the trial of preachers for immo- 
rality, improper conduct, and heresy, for arbitration between 
members, and for the expulsion of members convicted of 
sowing dissensions, by inveighing against doctrines or dis- 
cipline. The right and order of appeal from a lower to a 
higher court were, also, secured. The order of public wor- 
ship was prescribed, without any reference to Wesley's Lit- 
urgy, which had now fallen into disuse. 

The Conference adjourned after a two weeks' session on 
Thursday, November 15. William Colbert and James 
Thomas were solemnly ordained elders the day before. 
After the conclusion of business on Thursday, Coke 
preached on "pure religion and undefiled." "A solemn 
awe rested upon the congregation," writes Coke, "the 
meeting was continued till about midnight." He departed 
with the highest estimate of the abilities and consecration of 
the American itinerants: 

We continued our Conference [he says] for fifteen days. I had always 
entertained very high ideas of the piety and zeal of the American preach- 
ers, and of the considerable abilities of many; but I had no expectation, I 
confess, that the debates would be carried on in so very masterly a manner; 
so that on every question of importance the subject seemed to be considered 
in every possible light. Throughout the whole of the debates they consid- 
ered themselves as the servants of the people, and therefore never lost sight 
of them on any question. Indeed, the single eye, and the spirit of humility, 
which were manifested by the preachers throughout the whole of the Con- 
ference, were extremely pleasing. 



CHAPTER XVI. 



THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1 796. 



THE Second Quadrennial General Conference met in 
Baltimore, Thursday, October 20, 1796; though the 
preceding Conference had inserted in the Discipline that this 
session should begin November 1.* The change of date was, 
however, authorized by the Annual Conferences.! Bishop 
Coke arrived from Europe two days before the opening and 
Bishop Asbury joined him the next day. "About a hun- 
dred preachers," he says, 4 4 were met for General Confer- 
ence. . . The Conference rose on Thursday, the 3d of 
November: what we have done is printed." J "We pre- 
sent to you in a separate tract from our form of discipline 
the result of our deliberations," § say the Bishops in an ad- 
dress to the Church on behalf of the General Conference, 
thus, once more, affording an intimation that the Minutes of 
1792 had not been published apart from the Discipline. 
The sole legislative prerogative of the General Conference, 
in contrast with the ordinary executive business of the Year- 
ly Conferences, under the laws prescribed for them, is, in 
this same prefatory address, brought out clearly: "We 
have, therefore, on a former occasion [1792] confined solely 
to the General Conference the work of revising our form of 
discipline, reserving for the Yearly Conferences the common 
business of the connexion, as directed by the form."|| 

According to Lee, the number present increased to a hun- 
dred and twenty. The district bodies disappear, and the 
General Conference for the first time defines the boundaries 
of the Annual Conferences, ordaining six at this session: 

* Emory, Hist, of Discipline, p. in. f Minutes, ed. 1813, p. 162. 

J Journal, II. 267. § Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 7. 

|| Ibid., I.7. 

(266) 



The General Conference of 1J96. 



26*] 



New England, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Virginia, South 
Carolina, and Western. The Bishops, however, were em- 
powered to create others if necessary.* The "chartered 
fund " is established.! There had been nothing on the sub- 
ject of slavery in the Discipline of the Church for more than 
ten years, since the Conferences of 1785 annulled the legis- 
lation of the Christmas Conference, except the General 
Rule, of uncertain parentage, inserted (some say "interpo- 
lated") in 1789. This General Conference asked "What 
regulations shall be made for the extirpation of the crying 
evil of African slavery?" and enacted the following elab- 
orate legislation: 

1. We declare that we are more than ever convinced of the great evil of 
the African slavery which still exists in these United States, and do most ear- 
nestly recommend to the yearly Conferences, quarterly meetings, and to 
those who have the oversight of districts and circuits, to be exceedingly 
cautious what persons they admit to official stations in our Church; and, 
in the case of future admission to official stations, to require such security 
of those who hold slaves, for the emancipation of them, immediately or 
gradually, as the laws of the states respectively and the circumstances of 
the case will admit. And we do fully authorize all the yearly Conferences 
to make whatever regulations they judge proper, in the present case, re- 
specting the admission of persons to official stations in our Church. 

2. No slaveholder shall be received into our society till the preacher who 
has the oversight of the circuit has spoken to him freely and faithfully on 
the subject of slavery. 

3. Every member of the society who sells a slave shall immediately, aft- 
er full proof, be excluded the society. And if any member of our society 
purchase a slave, the ensuing quarterly meeting shall determine on the num- 
ber of years in which the slave so purchased would work out the price of his 
purchase. And the person so purchasing shall, immediately after such de- 
termination, execute a legal instrument for the manumission of such slave 
at the expiration of the term determined by the quarterly meeting. And 
in default of bis executing such instrument of manumission, or on his refus- 
al to submit his case to the judgment of the quarterly meeting, such mem- 
ber shall be excluded the society. Provided, also, that in the case of a fe- 
male slave, it shall be inserted in the aforesaid instrument of manumission, 
that all her children who shall be born during the years of her servitude, 
shall be free at the following times, namely : every female child at the age of 
twenty-one, and every male child at the age of twenty-five. Nevertheless, 
if the member of our society, executing the said instrument of manumission, 
judge it proper, he may fix the times of manumission of the children of the 

-Gen. Conf. Journals, I. n. f Ibid., I. 20-22. 



268 The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



female slaves before mentioned, at an earlier age than that which is pre- 
scribed above. 

4. The preachers and other members of our society are requested to con- 
sider the subject of negro slavery with deep attention till the ensuing Gen- 
eral Conference : and that they impart to the General Conference, through 
the medium of the yearly conferences, or otherwise, any important thoughts 
upon the subject, that the Conference may have full light, in order to take 
further steps toward the eradicating this enormous evil from that part of the 
church of God to which they are united * 

At the request of the General Conference, Coke and As- 
bury appended their " Notes on the Discipline," to the edi- 
tion of 1796. " It may be worthy of remark," says Emory, 
" that this is almost the only section upon which the bishops 
make no notes." f 

On temperance this Conference was also decided: 

If any member of our society retail or give spirituous liquors, and any- 
thing disorderly be transacted under his roof on this account, the preacher 
who has the oversight of the circuit shall proceed againt him as in the case 
of other immoralities. J 

Asbury says, " At the Conference, there was a stroke aimed 
at the president eldership," § but nothing of its nature can 
be gathered from the official Journal or contemporary sources. 
The election of presiding elders by the Annual Conferences 
became a subject of debate in the General Conference of 1800 
and continued a burning question until 1828, when it was 
finally put to rest. 

But aborted measures are not recorded. The Journal 
says nothing of "strengthening the episcopacy" at this 
Conference, yet this question furnished matter for earnest 
and protracted debate. At first, a committee was raised, to 
which the subject was referred; but objections were urged, 
and it was dissolved. " They agreed to a committee," 
says Asbury, "and then complained; upon which we dis- 
solved ourselves." || Pending the discussion, Asbury stated 
to the Conference his fears of an imprudent selection and 

*Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 22, 23; Emory, Hist, of Discipline, pp. 275, 276. 
"j*Hist. of Discipline, p. 276, footnote. 
J Gen. Conf. Journal, I. 28. 
§Journal, II. 267. 
|| Ibid., II. 267. 



The General Conference of i/p6. 



269 



expressed a desire for a colleague established in the doctrines 
and discipline of Methodism. " This threw a damper on 
all present, and seemed to paralyze the whole business." 
The resolution before the Conference was then amended, 
"to strengthen the episcopacy in a way which should be 
agreeable to Mr. Asbury." It was then almost unanimous- 
ly requested of Mr. Asbury to make the selection himself, 
which he appeared very unwilling to do. At this juncture, 
Coke, who occupied the chair, "begged that the business 
might be laid over till the afternoon." " When we met in 
the afternoon," continues Jesse Lee, "the doctor offered 
himself to us, if we saw cause to take him; and promised to 
serve us in the best manner he could, and to be entirely at 
the disposal of his American brethren, and to live and die 
among them." * 

Of the debate which followed, the Rev,, John Kobler, who 
was present, gives an account, in a letter to Dr. L. M. Lee, 
written, however, as late as 1843: 

This unexpected offer, and to many an unwelcome one, opened the way 
to a large and spirited debate. A number present were warmly in favor of 
accepting the offer, and as many were against it. Mr. Lee was decidedly 
against and he warmly opposed it. In fact, I believe he never liked the 
Doctor anyway, from his first entering among us in 1784, to the last. He 
could not endure the absolute spirit and overbearing disposition of Dr. Coke, 
as a high officer in the Church. Mr. Lee was a candid man, and in no w T ise 
disposed to give flattering titles to any, and, as such, he opposed the offer 
with great zeal and eloquence from first to last. He was a man of great pen- 
etration, and could see through circumstances and read men well. He was 
the best speaker in the Conference. He first showed that there were several 
members in our Connection who were well qualified to fill the office, having- 
been long and well proved; who were natives of the country, one of our- 
selves, and were well acquainted with the rules by which our civil and reli- 
gious privileges were regulated. But his most powerful argument, I well 
remember, was this: "That the doctor was a thoroughbred Englishman; 
and an entire stranger abroad in the country {put of the Church); that the 
deep-rooted prejudices against British oppression, which by our arduous 
Revolutionary struggle we had so recently thrown off, still hung heavily, 
and was operating powerfully upon the public mind; and that to select a 
high officer to govern our Church from that distant and tyrannizing nation, 
whose spirit and practice were held in abhorrence by the American people, 
would, in his judgment, be a very impolitic step, and would tend to raise the 

:;: Hist. of Methodists, pp. 247, 248; cf. Dr. L. M. Lee, Life of Jesse Lee, pp. 325-330. 



270 The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



suspicions and prejudices of the public against us as a Church. He further 
said he had frequently heard the same objections made against us as an 
American Church for having a native of England (Bishop Asbury) at 
our head; and now to add another, who, in many respects, had not the ex- 
perience, prudence, nor skill in government that Bishop Asbury had, would 
operate very materially against the best interests of the Church." 

The debate lasted two days, and was incessant; and during the time the 
Doctor was secluded from the Conference room. Mr. Lee and his party 
evidently had the better of the cause in debate, and were gaining confidence 
continually. In one of his speeches, Mr. Lee said he was confident the 
Doctor would not fill the high office, and perform the vast amount of labor 
attached to it; that England was his home, his friends and best interests 
were there, and without doubt he would spend most of his time in going to 
and fro between England and America, and leave the Episcopacy and the 
Connection as void of help as they were before. When Bishop Asbury saw 
how the matter was likely to go, he rose from the chair, and with much ap- 
parent feeling said: " If we reject him it will be his ruin, for the British 
Conference will certainly know of it, and it will sink himvastly in their es- 
timation." Here the debate ended. I well remember during the debate, the 
Doctor came into Conference and made a speech. Among other things, he 
said, " he never was cast upon such a sea of uncertainty before." This, I ex- 
pect, made Bishop Asbury say, "If we reject Mm, it ivill be his rain! 1 '' The dis- 
cussion was now stopped, and the whole matter submitted (though by 
many with reluctance) to Bishop Asbury's judgment — for they had, pre- 
viously to the Doctor's offer, urged him to make his own selection. I have 
often wondered at Bishop Asbury's implicit confidence in Dr. Coke. Wheth- 
er he felt himself bound, in conscience, to submit to one who ordained him 
to the office of Superintendent, or whether it was because he was Mr. Wes- 
ley's representative, I am at a loss to say. But the Doctor's conduct, in a 
short time, fully proved that Mr. Lee's opinions of his course were found- 
ed in a wise discrimination of character — for in a few months he went to 
England, and never appeared among us till four years afterwards.* 

Jesse Lee says, however, that "the Conference at length 
agreed to the Doctor's proposal" and concluded that they 
could do with two bishops. The Doctor then gave the fol- 
lowing paper to the Conference: 

I offer myself to my American brethren entirely to their service, all I am 
and have, with my talents and labors in every respect, without any mental 
reservation whatsoever, to labor among them, and to assist Bishop Asbury; 
not to station the preachers at any time when he is present, but to exereise 
all episcopal duties, when I hold a Conference in his absence, and by his 
consent, and to visit the West Indies and France when there is an opening, 
and I can be spared. 

(Signed) • Thomas Coke. 

Conference Room, Baltimore, October 27, 1796.! 



* Letter in Life of Jesse Lee, pp. 327, 328. fLee, Hist, of the Methodists, p. 248. 



The General Conference of ijg6. 



271 



44 Bishop Coke was cordially received," writes Asbury, 
44 as my friend and colleague, to be wholly for America, un- 
less a way should be opened to France." * 

Let us unravel, if we may, this somewhat tangled skein. 
Coke had left America in May 1791, on hearing the news 
of Wesley's death. After an absence of eighteen months, 
he returns barely in time for the General Conference of 
1792, in the appointment of which he had exercised a deci- 
sive influence. In December following he sails for the West 
Indies, and does not again reach America until the eve of 
the General Conference of 1796. Throughout the quadren- 
nium he had been absent in the West Indies, England, Ire- 
land, and Holland. He had been of no assistance to Bish- 
op Asbury in the labors of the general superintendency, 
though the work was extending and Asbury's health failing. 
Yet throughout this period, in the Minutes of 1792, 1793, 
1794, and 1795, the question and answer are uniform, 
44 Ques. 6. Who have been elected by the unanimous suf- 
frages of the General Conference to superintend the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church in America? Ans. Thomas Coke, 
Francis Asbury." f So, indeed, the question and answer 
had stood, without qualification, since 1788, except that in 
this year the question read, " Who are the Bishops of our 
Church for the United States?" % So this question and an- 
swer continued to stand until 1800 § when it is changed to 
44 Who are the Bishops?" and the name of Richard What- 
coat is added. || Thus the Minutes read until 1806. U In 
1807, Richard Whatcoat having died, his name is dropped, 
and the question is changed to, 44 Who are the Superintend- 
ents and Bishops?" and, as in the beginning, the answer is, 
"Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury." ** In 1808, the answer 
is, " Francis Asbury, William McKendree," and this note is 
appended, 44 Dr. Coke, at the request of the British Confer- 

* Journal, II. 267. | Minutes, Ed. of 1813, pp. 112, 124, 137, 152. 

%Ibid., pp. 60, 77, 89, IOO. %Ibid., pp. 169, 188, 204, 220. 
|| Ibid., p. 236. \Ibid., pp. 253, 271, 288, 308, 332, 361. 

**Ibid., p. 385. 



272 The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



ence, and by consent of our General Conference, resides in 
Europe: he is not to exercise the office of Superintendent 
among us in the United States, until he be recalled by the 
General Conference, or by all the Annual Conferences re- 
spectively." * This question, answer, and note continued 
unchanged in the Minutes of 1809, 1810, 1811, 1812, and 
1813, until Bishop Coke's death in 1814.! This completes 
the official record of Coke's episcopate, so far as the Min- 
utes give information. 

Let us turn, now, to the proceedings of the General Con- 
ference. When Coke returned to the General Conference 
of 1796, after an absence of nearly four years, he was ac- 
corded, apparently without question, his place in the chair 
as one of the presidents of the Conference, and was presid- 
ing when the question of strengthening the episcopacy was 
raised. His name precedes Asbury's in the signatures at- 
tached to the address prefixed to the Journal, t His name 
alone is signed to the Journal of 1800 as President of the 
Conference. § The action of this Conference with regard 
to Dr. Coke will presently come under review. In 1804, 
his name is appended to the Journal, with those of Asbury 
and Whatcoat, but stands last. || This was the last General 
Conference at which Bishop Coke was present: by an al- 
most unanimous vote, as we shall see hereafter, the Ameri- 
cans maintained their claim upon him. In 1808 the Gener- 
al Conference ordered the note, before noticed, to be insert- 
ed in the Minutes: this stood, as we have seen, until the 
Doctor's death. 

After this epitome of the official history of Dr. Coke's 
episcopate, we return to the circumstances of 1796. Before 
leaving England to attend this General Conference, an Afri- 
can mission, projected by the Doctor, in Sierra Leone, had 
proved unsuccessful, and " rendered his last attendance at 
the English Conference far from being pleasing. These 

* Minutes, ed. of 1813, p. 411. | Ibid., pp. 442, 471, 504, 540, 575. 

J Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 8. %Ibid. % I. 46. 

|| Ibid., I. 69. 



The General Conference of 1796. 



273 



circumstances, connected with a hope of being more exten- 
* sively useful in America, than he could be in England, 
rendered it somewhat doubtful on his departure, whether 
he should not take up his final abode with his friends on 
the continent." * These were the circumstances, so far as 
his British connections and obligations were concerned, 
under which Coke made a tender of himself to the Gener- 
al Conference, and "was cordially received," as Asbury 
records. 

But why were a tender of his services and an acceptance 
of them by the Conference necessary? Was not Coke a 
bishop, entitled, without challenge, to exercise the duties 
and privileges of his office? Undoubtedly he was. At this 
very juncture, he was occupying the president's chair in a 
General Conference, though he had been absent from the 
United States the four years preceding. From 1784 to 1804 
he presided in every General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. We know of no instance from 1787, 
when some of his acts were first called in question, to 1796, 
when he did not exercise all the powers of a bishop at any 
Annual Conference at which he was present. Asbury tells 
us expressly in his letter to Benson, that, on such occasions, 
he was accustomed to yield the chair to Coke whenever he 
was present. But, in answer to such questions as those 
suggested above, tacitly if not expressly raised, it is usual 
with not a few writers to plunge into an abstract discussion 
of the mutual relations of the General Conference and the 
Episcopacy, and to generalize on Coke's case until the su- 
premacy of the General Conference and the dependence of 
the bishops upon its authority are established to their satis- 
faction. Upon the merits of this discussion there is nothing 
in Coke's situation at this juncture, or in the action of the 
General Conference of 1796, that calls us to enter. To allay 
the sensitiveness of any critical or doubting reader, however, 
it may be conceded, once for all, without debate, that the 
General Conference, as then constituted, had unlimited 



13 



*Dre\v, Life of Coke, p. 273. 



274 The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



power to govern the Methodist Episcopal Church. It could 
amend or annul the Articles of Religion or the General 
Rules ; leave the place hitherto occupied by them vacant, or 
substitute others in their stead. It could abolish episcopacy 
or the presiding eldership and ordain government by pres- 
bytery or on the congregational plan. It could terminate its 
own existence, and organize a Council or any other organ 
of administration which its wisdom might suggest. It could 
accept the rule and supremacy of the British Conference, as 
there is evidence that Asbury feared might be done, in the 
event of his own death before the election of another bishop. 
It is difficult to see why it could not have divided the 
Church, substituting two or more General Conferences, 
with mutually exclusive jurisdictions, in its own room, had 
that course been deemed expedient, since the body was 
composed of the traveling ministry of the Church, with su- 
preme and unlimited powers, and there was nowhere lodged 
any authority to offer any legal check to the execution of its 
decisions, which must have been carried out, unless the 
laity had refused compliance. It was a mass convention of 
the entire ministry of the Church in full connexion. There 
are no terms too broad or too high to express the unlimited 
powers which belonged to this body, and which continued to 
belong to it until 1808. But it is not writing history to can- 
vass Dr. Coke's case at length, as a recent distinguished 
historian has done, and then declare unexpectedly, 44 This 
power [of deposition of a General Superintendent without 

trial] was asserted by the General Conference of -," 

naming a Delegated Conference which assembled nearly half 
a century later. It is a question whether the General Con- 
ference alluded to exercised any such power; but that is 
not the present issue. It is freely allowed that the General 
Conference of 1796 possessed all the powers enumerated 
above; but it will become manifest, beyond contradiction, 
that, as a matter of fact, it exercised none of them. 

In their notes to the Discipline ordained by this very 
General Conference, Bishops Coke and Asbury say, 44 they 



The General Conference of 1J96. 



275 



[the Bishops] are perfectly dependent; that their power, 
their usefulness, themselves, are entirely at the mercy of the 
General Conference."* The principle of the absolute 
supremacy of the Quadrennial General Conferences from 
1792 to 1808, in the government of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, is undisputed and indisputable. The Bishops were 
foremost in the acknowledgment of this supremacy in terms 
the most unqualified. 

Having unreservedly conceded this point, let us now con- 
tinue our inquiry as to what was actually done in Bishop 
Coke's case by the General Conference of 1796. The un- 
questioned recognition of his episcopal character at this 
time has already been noticed. In view of Dr. Coke's rela- 
tions to his brethren in Europe, there can be no doubt that 
his tender of himself to the General Conference was both 
natural and sincere. In view of his relations to his breth- 
ren in America, this tender, if he found it possible at length 
to give his entire services to this continent, was highly expe- 
dient. It was, indeed, necessary to the intelligent action of 
the General Conference on the question of strengthening 
the episcopacy, then before the body. Dr. Coke had nev- 
er been able to pledge his entire time to the Americans 
since his first acceptance as one of their bishops in 1784. 
During the five years and a half since his departure in the 
spring of 1791, he had been able to spend but two months 
in America. Notwithstanding these numerous interruptions 
and these protracted absences, his episcopal character was 
still recognized. He had now come, as he did four years 
before, to attend the General Conference. The natural 
supposition of the Americans was that he intended to re- 
turn to Europe, as before, shortly after the adjournment of 
the Conference. They knew nothing of the temporary em- 
barrassment of his relations with the English Conference, 
growing out of the failure of his African mission. There 
was no way of their knowing that his entire services were 
available, and at their disposal, unless he informed them of 



* Emory, Hist, of the Discipline, p. 291; Sherman, p. 351. 



276 The Quadrennial General Conferences. 

it. The question under discussion, let it be borne in mind, 
was not Coke's episcopal character, but the strengthening 
of the episcopacy, in view of Asbury's increasing infirmities 
and the enlarging Church, and, particularly, as Bishop Coke 
was nearly continuously absent from the country, and thus 
unable to render aid. During these five and a half years of 
absence, Coke's position in the Methodist Episcopal Church 
had not been for a moment forgotten or ignored. In all the 
official publications of the Church, it was formally and con- 
stantly recognized, equally with Asbury's. On his return, 
he assumes a rightful presidency in the General Conference. 
Instead of treating him with any shade of discourtesy, in- 
quiring why he should not surrender an office whose duties 
were imperative but which he was unable to discharge, or 
handling him in any other way, as this autocratic assembly 
might have done, the Conference uniformly bestowed upon 
him the most distinguished consideration. He was permitted 
liberties with respect to absence and foreign service, on ac- 
count of his unique relation to Ecumenical Methodism, that 
would not be tolerated in a General Superintendent of the 
present day, who, " if he cease from traveling without the 
consent of the General Conference, shall not thereafter ex- 
ercise the Episcopal office in our Church." 

We have cited Mr. Kobler's letter in full, but writing 
nearly half a century after the events he describes, his testi- 
mony is of low evidential value, and he is clearly mistaken 
in some of his recollections. This can be shown, in some 
points, from general history; while contemporary sources* 
are uniform as to the unanimity and cheerfulness with which 
the Conference accepted Bishop Coke's services. Mr. Kob- 
ler says the Doctor "went to England and never appeared 
among us till four years afterward." When the General 
Conference adjourned, Coke remained in America until 
Feb. 6, 1797, performing episcopal labors according to his 
agreement with the General Conference and much to the 
relief of Asbury. The two bishops attended together the 
Virginia and South Carolina Conferences, and Coke, doing 



The General Conference of 1796. 



277 



much preaching by the way, was in his happiest mood until 
the day he sailed from Charleston. August 28, following, 
he again left Liverpool for America, in the meantime having 
presided over the English Conference. In November 1797 
he was once more with Asbury at the Virginia Conference, 
and performed his episcopal duties throughout the autumn 
and winter, returning to Europe in the spring of 1798. 
Meantime an affectionate contest had sprung up between 
the English and the Americans as to the possession of the 
little Doctor and his services. It had been supposed at the 
General Conference of 1796 that he would have to return to 
England for the settlement of his affairs, personal and ec- 
clesiastical, before his permanent residence in America 
could begin. Indeed it is evident from the document itself, 
and from Asbury's account, that the engagement into which 
Coke entered with the General Conference was not abso- 
lute, but contemplated various interruptions of his American 
labors, especially by the affairs of the French and West In- 
dian missions. The written engagement itself, it is highly 
probable, Coke impetuously tendered, after the debate on 
the matter, without demand from the Conference, which 
takes no official notice of it in Journal or Minutes. Indeed 
Dr. Coke, on various occasions, exhibits a decided penchant 
for papers of this description, which involved him in some 
troubles from which a little reserve and diplomacy would 
have saved him. After his long absence from America, 
and considering Asbury's growing experience and entire fa- 
miliarity with the preachers and the work, in the continental 
proportions to which it had now attained, the generous and 
impulsive Coke, to anticipate objections, or to fend off Lee's 
insinuations in debate, modestly represents his province 
as "to assist Bishop Asbury," which would doubtless have 
been the attitude of the new bishop, had one been elected. 

In March, 1797, Dr. Coke was in Ireland. 44 Keeping in 
view," says his biographer, 4 4 his engagements to return to 
America, his farewell admonitions had a powerful effect 
upon his audiences." Many sorrowed for the words he 



The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



spoke, that they should see his face no more. At the suc- 
ceeding Irish Conference, he found himself firmly riveted in 
the affections of preachers and people. "At the English 
Conference, which speedily followed, the preachers who as- 
sembled intimated one to another the prevailing report, that 
Dr. Coke intended quitting them forever, and taking up his 
abode for life in the United States. . . The affairs of Confer- 
ence being ended, and an address prepared for the brethren 
in America, requesting them to cancel Dr. Coke's engage- 
ments to continue among them," he sailed from Liverpool, 
Aug. 28, 1797, as previously noticed. " He was again 
brought into a dilemma, but it was of the pleasing kind. He 
was importuned on each side of the Atlantic." * 

Mr. Kobler's presentation of Jesse Lee's argument against 
the acceptance of Dr. Coke by the American Conference 
deserves a moment's consideration, though we cannot de- 
pend upon its verbal accuracy. Its substance being accepted 
as sufficiently correct, the argument amounts to this, that it 
was impolitic for the Americans to have another English 
bishop. Evidently this view did not impress the General 
Conference, then or afterwards. Bishop Asbury continued 
in the successful prosecution of his superintendency until 
1816; Bishop Coke was cordially and almost unanimously 
accepted at this time and, besides much episcopal labor in 
the Annual Conferences and throughout the Church, pre- 
sided in the General Conferences of 1800 and 1804; in 1800, 
Bishop Whatcoat, another Englishman, was elected to the 
episcopal office, after a tie vote between him and brother 
Jesse Lee. Lee was a great and good man who brought 
things to pass ; a giant of the itinerancy who deserves recog- 
nition among the very ablest and best Methodist preachers, 
produced in either England or America. Those who knew 
him best thought he ought to have been a bishop, and this is 
almost certainly true. He stood deservedly high in the es- 
teem of Asbury, who, in 1797, nominated him, with Poythress 
and Whatcoat, for the episcopacy, under circumstances 



* Drew, Life of Coke, pp. 275, 276. 



The General Conference of 1796. 279 

which will presently pass under review. If Asbury had now 
consented to make a nomination as requested, or if Coke 
had not made this tender of himself, or if the General Con- 
ference had rejected him, it is by no means improbable that 
Lee would have been chosen a bishop in 1796. It is not 
necessary or allowable to impeach his motives with respect 
to the position he took in debate before the Conference. It 
is enough to remember that he was neither more nor less 
than human, and that he was not ignorant of the impor- 
tance of his achievements for American Methodism, or 
of the esteem in which he was held by his brethren, north 
and south, from Asbury down. As to Asbury's alleged 
language, " If we reject him, it will be his ruin," if he used 
the expression at all, it was a piece of rhetorical exaggera- 
tion, which Coke's subsequent reception in Ireland and En- 
gland, and the demands of his English brethren, proved to 
have no foundation in fact. Kobler testified to Asbury's 
"implicit confidence in Dr. Coke," and though Bishop 
Coke had doubtless confidentially communicated to his col- 
league the recent events in England, connected with the 
failure of his African mission, and the " sea of uncertain- 
ty " on which he was cast, in his wounded feelings, the 
event demonstrated that both of them estimated too lightly 
the esteem in which Dr Coke was held by the English Con- 
ference. At the very next Conference, at Leeds, in 1797, 
he was elected President of the Conference, the highest 
honor in British Methodism, and again at Sheffield in 1805 
he was elevated to the same distinguished office. Of the 
English Conference he was almost continuously Secretary 
from 1799 to 1813; but it is useless to adduce further proof 
of the supreme regard in which he was held by the English 
Methodists until his death. 

The Rev. William Phoebus has left us an account of the 
transactions of 1796 connected with "strengthening the 
episcopacy," which makes quite a different impression from 
Mr. Kobler's, and by which we may correct or supplement 
the latter: 



280 



The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



The question before the house was, " If Francis Asbury's seat as Super- 
intendent be vacated by death, or otherwise, was Dr. Coke considered, from 
the authority he had in the Church, as having a right to take the Superin- 
tendency in the same manner as it was exercised by Francis Asbury ? " Dr. 
Coke was then asked, if he would be ready to come to the United States 
and reside there, if he were called to take the charge as Superintendent, so 
that there might be a succession from Wesley. He agreed, as soon as he 
should be able to settle his charge in Europe, with all pleasure and possible 
dispatch to come and spend his days in America. The Rev. Superintendent 
Asbury then reached out his right hand in a pathetic speech, the purport of 
which was : " Our enemies said we were divided, but all past grievances were 
buried, and friends at first, are friends at last, and I hope never to be divided." 
The doctor took his right hand in token of submission, while many present 
were in tears of joy to see the happy union in the heads of department, and 
from a prospect of the Wesleyan Episcopacy being likely to continue in regu- 
lar order and succession.* 

Some pretty high churchmanship, for Methodists, was 
floating about in that General Conference, despite the anxiety 
of a few later scribes to impress upon us that Bishop Coke 
was a nondescript, upon whom neither the General Confer- 
ence nor its members bestowed any special regard. He was 
hardly a football or a plaything. Of the episcopal election 
of 1800, the same authority says: 

At a General Conference in 1800 a resolution passed to strengthen the 
episcopacy by adding a third. There were two principal candidates in nomi- 
nation. But such as thought correctly perceived that it could not be 
strengthened if one should be joined to it who was not convinced that such 
an order was apostolic. He would see no necessity to submit to such an or- 
dination, nor to defend it if he thought it not divine, any more than he would 
pray fervently and devoutly for the dead, while he did not think purgatory a 
doctrine of the Bible. A man who did not believe in three orders in the 
ministry would weaken the episcopacy. Such was one of the nominated, as 
may be seen by the memoirs of the Rev. Jesse Lee. Richard Whatcoat had 
thought it an honor to be ordained a deacon, as St. Stephen was; and an eld- 
er, as the Seventy; and had magnified both orders, and was a warm advo- 
cate for the third ; esteeming it not an office taken at pleasure, but an order 
of God. 

If these were some of the considerations which deter- 
mined that election — and such they doubtless were, judging 
from the tenor of the vindication of Methodist Episcopacy, 
which Bishops Coke and Asbury insert in their Notes on the 
Discipline of 1796, in which they refer to Timothy and Titus 



* Memoirs of Bishop Whatcoat, p. 84. 



The General Conference of ijg6. 



281 



as ' ' traveling bishops," — a General Conference of unlimited 
powers gave rather strong endorsement to the "three or- 
der" doctrine, which seems to have been generally accept- 
ed among the earliest Methodist Episcopalians. But on this 
point we shall not linger. Rather may we contemplate the 
pleasing scene before the General Conference when Coke 
and Asbury, the " heads of department," were publicly rec- 
onciled. They had not met in four years, else the alienation 
had perhaps been more speedily removed. In 1787, they had 
been unhappily opposed, and Asbury' s policy was adopted. 
In 1792 Asbury had been the champion of the Council and 
Coke of the Conference, and Coke's plan had triumphed. 
Coke had also fallen, Asbury thought, too much under 
O'Kelley's influence. In 1796 " all past grievances were 
buried," and "friends at first" were "friends at last." 
When Coke died, Asbury, who survived him two years, 
wrote, " He was a minister of Christ in zeal and labors, and 
in services, the greatest man of the last century." 

Colbert confirms Asbury's and Phoebus's account of the 
cordiality and unanimity of Coke's reception: 

Friday, [Oct.] 28. There was much talk about another Bishop, and in the 
afternoon Dr. Coke made an offer of himself. It was not determined wheth- 
er they would receive him ; but to-day I suppose there were not a dozen out 
of a hundred that rejected him by their votes. This gave me satisfaction. 
The afternoon was spent debating whether the local deacons should be made 
eligible to the office of elder, and it went against them.* 

When Coke returned to America in 1797 with the epistle 
of the English Conference requesting that his obligations to 
the American Conference should be canceled, of course 
there was no General Conference in session. But this ad- 
dress was laid before the Virginia Conference then in ses- 
sion, and Asbury assumed the responsibility of a reply, dat- 
ed from the Virginia Conference, November 29, 1797 : 

Respected Fathers and Brethren : You, in your brotherly kindness, were 
pleased to address a letter to us, your brethren and friends in America, ex- 
pressing your difficulties and desires concerning our beloved brother, Dr. 
Coke, that he might return to Europe to heal the breach which designing 
men have been making among you, or prevent its threatened overflow. 

" Colbert's Journal. 



282 



The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



We have but one grand responsive body, which is our General Conference, 
and it was in and to this body the doctor entered his obligations to serve his 
brethren in America. No yearly conference, no official character dare as- 
sume to answer for that grand federal body. By the advice of the yearly 
conference now sitting in Virginia, and the respect I bear to you, I write to 
inform you that in our own persons and order we consent to his return, and 
■partial continuance with you, and earnestly pray that you may have much 
peace, union, and happiness together. May you find that your divisions end 
in a greater union, order, and harmony of the body, so that the threatened 
cloud may blow over, and your devisive party may be of as little conse- 
quence to you, as ours is to us. With respect to the doctor's returning to 
us, I leave your -enlarged understandings and good sense to judge. You 
will see the number of souls upon our annual Minutes, and as men of read- 
ing, you may judge over what a vast continent these societies are scattered. 
I refer you to a large letter I wrote our beloved brother Bradburn on the 
subject. . . . From Charleston, South Carolina, where the conference 
was held, to the province of Maine, where another conference is to be held, 
there is a space of about 1,300 miles; and we have only one worn-out super- 
intendent, who was this day advised by the yearly conference to desist from 
preaching till next spring, on account of his debilitated state of body. But 
the situation of our affairs requires that he should travel about 5,000 miles a 
year, through many parts unsettled, and other thinly peopled countries. I 
have now with me an assistant, who does everything for me he constitution- 
ally can; but the ordaining and stationing the preachers can only be per- 
formed by myself in the doctor's absence. We have to lament that our su- 
perintendency is so weak, and that it cannot constitutionally be strength- 
ened till the ensuing General Conference.* 

And so Dr. Coke remained in suspense between the im- 
portunities of the English and American Conferences until 
the General Conference of 1800, and the election of his fel- 
low Englishman, Whatcoat, to the joint superintendency 
with Asbury. But previous to his return and before the 
meeting of the Virginia Conference, there were some im- 
portant occurrences which cannot be overlooked. 

In the summer of 1797, during Dr. Coke's absence, As- 
bury began to despair of meeting his episcopal engage- 
ments. He accordingly wrote to Jesse Lee requesting him 
to be in readiness to accompany him from the approaching 
session of the New England Conference to Charleston and 
the Southern Conferencs, at which, however, as the event 
proved, Bishop Coke was present, and assisted in the dis- 
charge of the episcopal labor. September 12, Asbury 



*Drew, Life of Coke, pp. 280, 281. 



The General Conference of ijg6. 



283 



again writes, appointing Lee president of the New England 
Conference, and indicating his further intentions: 

My Very Dear Brother : I am convinced that I ought not to attempt to 
come to the Conference at Wilbraham. Riding thirteen miles yesterday 
threw me into more fever than I have had for a week past. It will be with 
difficulty I shall get back. The burden lieth on thee; act with a wise and 
tender hand, especially on the stations. I hope it will force the Connexion 
to do something, and turn their attention for one to assist or substitute me. 
I cannot express the distress I have had in all my afflictions, for the state of 
the Connexion. We say the Lord will provide. True; but we must look 
out for men and means. Your brethren in Virginia wish you to come forth. 
I think the most general and impartial election may take place in the Yearly 
Conferences ; every one may vote ; and in General Conference, perhaps one- 
fifth or one-sixth part would be absent. I wish you to come and keep as 
close to me and my directions as you can. I wish you to go, after the Con- 
ference, to Georgia, Holston, and to Kentucky ; and perhaps come to Balti- 
more in June, if the ordination should take place, and so come on to the 
Eastern Conference. 

The reference to ordination is explained by the fact that 
Asbury had sent a communication to the New England Con- 
ference, nominating Lee, Poythress, and Whatcoat for 
" assistant bishops." But the Conference wisely declined 
to act, in view of the requirements of the Discipline, and 
his proposal appears not to have been laid before any other 
Conference. At the time of writing to Lee, Asbury was 
sick with " swelling in the face, bowels, and feet" at New 
Rochelle, N. Y. Afterward he attempted to reach the Con- 
ference, but returned and went to bed with a high fever, 
" distressed at the thought of a useless and idle life." The 
New England Conference, while refusing to act on Asbury' s 
nominations, gave Lee written instructions to 44 travel with 
the bishop, and fill his appointments when the latter could not 
be present." In his Journal, under date of September 21, 
1797, Asbury says: 

It is a doubt if the Doctor cometh to America until spring, if at all until 
the General Conference. I am more than ever convinced of the propriety 
of the attempts I have made to bring forward Episcopal men: First, from 
the uncertain state of my health; secondly, from a regard to the union and 
good order of the American body, and the state of the European connexion. 
I am sensibly assured the Americans ought to act as if they expected to lose 
me every day, and had no dependence upon Dr. Coke, taking prudent care 



284 The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



not to place themselves at all under the controlling influence of British 
Methodists* 

Asbury clearly perceived the value of Wesley's episcopa- 
cy to the American connexion, and the divisions and disasters 
which were threatening the English from the lack of it. 
He feared the lapse of that episcopate in America, and con- 
sequent amalgamation with the English, and the possible 
supremacy of the British Conference in America as well as 
at home. But in a few weeks his episcopal colleague was 
by his side, and in 1800 the General Conference legally 
chose a new bishop. "That he meant well, and nominated 
wisely in this," remarks a recent author, " none can doubt. 
If not an abusive procedure, it was liable to abuse." t It 
must not be forgotten, however, that, notwithstanding the 
unlimited powers of the General Conference, and the sub- 
ordinate position of the Yearly bodies, no hard and fast line 
had yet been drawn in the mind of the Church between the 
action of the ministry assembled in General Conference, and 
the action of the ministry generally in the Annual Confer- 
ences. Indeed as the action would be taken in either case 
by the same persons, it is difficult to see how any conflict of 
authority could arise. As a matter of fact, the Annual Con- 
ferences took it upon themselves to alter the time of meet- 
ing appointed for both the General Conference of 1796 and 
that of 1800. And even General Conferences of unlimited 
powers governed themselves accordingly, for the very per- 
sons who composed them, acting in a scarcely distinguish- 
able capacity, had authorized the change. Asbury was des- 
tined to be left alone in the episcopacy once more, on the 
death of Whatcoat in 1806. And, at that late date, when 
four General Conferences had sat, a measure much more 
radical, dangerous, and indefensible was initiated in the An- 
nual Conferences, to anticipate the election of a bishop by 
the General Conference of 1808. But this transaction will 
be examined at the proper point in our history. 



* Journal, II. 292, 293. |McTyeire, Hist, of Meth., p. 470. 



CHAPTER XVII. 



THE GENERAL CONFERENCES OF l800 AND 1804. 



/. The General Conference of 1800. 

THE Conference assembled Tuesday, May 6, and con- 
tined in session fifteen days, adjourning Tuesday even- 
ing, May 20.* The Journal is attested by the signatures of 
T. Coke, President, and Nicholas Snethen, Secretary. 
It is probable that Asbury, on account of his health and the 
usual precedence he accorded to Coke, surrendered to the 
latter the presidency of the body. Since that time all the 
General Conferences of both Episcopal Methodisms have 
been held in the spring, usually in May. 

Asbury records a brief summary of proceedings: 

We had much talk, but little work: two days were spent in considering 
about Dr. Coke's return to Europe, part of two days on Richard Whatcoat 
for a bishop, and one day in raising the salary of the itinerant preachers 
from sixty-four to eighty dollars per year. We had one hundred and six- 
teen members present. It was still desired that I should continue in my 
station. On the iSth of May, 1800, elder Whatcoat was ordained to the office 
of a bishop, after being elected by a majority of four votes more than Jesse 
Lee/j- 

Jesse Lee, Philip Bruce, George Roberts, John Blood- 
good, William P. Chandler, John McClaskey, Ezekiel 
Cooper, Nicholas Snethen, Thomas Morrell, Joseph Totten, 
Lawrence McCombs, Thomas F. Sargent, William Burke, 
and William McKendree, were among the members — " rep- 
resentative men, who laid the broad foundations of Metho- 
dism, east, west, north, and south." % 

The second day of the session, Snethen introduced a res- 
olution, whose preamble recited that though the preceding 
General Conference had appointed Oct. 20, 1800, for the 

* Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 31, 46; Asbury's Journal, II. 375. j- Journal, II. 375. 
JBoehm's Reminiscences, p. 35. 

(285) 



286 The J^jiadrennial General Conferences. 



present session, the prevalence of a "very malignant epi- 
demic disorder, called yellow fever " in Baltimore and other 
seaports, made it doubtful whether the Conference could 
safely assemble at that season, and 44 Mr. Asbury did, by the 
advice of certain judicious friends, lay the case before the 
yearly conferences," which appointed May 6. And the body 
adopted his resolution, 4 4 that this General Conference, now 
met according to the above alteration and appointment, do 
unanimously approve of the said alteration, and ratify it ac- 
cordingly." * 

The question of prospective episcopal supervision had 
many complications. Dr. Coke's case, and the request of 
the English Conference, were to be disposed of. Mr. As- 
bury' s suggestion of superannuation and retirement must be 
considered. If a new bishop should be chosen, it remained 
to be determined whether his powers should be coordinate 
with those of Bishop Asbury or subordinate to them. Let 
us consider these matters in order, and first the case of Dr. 
Coke. 

The first day, as soon as Conference opened, Dr. Coke 
presented the address from the British Conference, explain- 
ing the parts relating to himself and his return to Europe, 
and adding that the address was not his own and that he 
was not consulted about it. He then placed the decision of 
the case entirely with the General Conference, as he viewed 
himself as their servant. f Three things are evident: (i) 
the British Conference 44 clearly perceived that the Metho- 
dism of England needed such a man, and sought to reclaim 
him;" % (2) Coke now saw the necessity of his services in 
England, especially in connection with the missions, and 
was willing to give them, but considered himself bound to 
the Americans, and meant to observe his compact, unless 
honorably released; (3) the Americans yielded their claim, 
but partially and with reluctance. 

Wednesday morning, May 7, McClaskey moved, 44 that 



*Gen. Conf. T ournals, I. 32. Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 31. 

% Smith, Hist, of Meth., II. 306. 



The General Conferences of 1800 and 1804. 287 



in compliance with the address of the British Conference, 
and request to us to let Dr. Coke return to Europe, this 
General Conference consent and agree to his return, upon 
condition that he come back to America as soon as his busi- 
ness will allow, but certainly by the next General Confer- 
ence." This motion was made the order of the day for the 
afternoon session, when the subject was warmly debated, 
and postponed until Thursday morning. The Conference 
was evidently not yet prepared to grant the request from En- 
gland. Thursday morning, " the business of the address 
was called up, and debated all the forenoon." Thursday 
afternoon, "the vote being called for on brother Mc- 
Claskey's motion, a large majority arose in favor of it. Dr. 
Coke is to return to Europe accordingly." * " We have 
lent the Doctor to you," they wrote in response to the Eng- 
lish Conference, "for a season." 

Bishop Asbury's relation to the work also came under 
review. Lee says: 

Some time previous to the meeting of the preachers in that Conference 
Mr. Asbury had said that when they met he would resign his office as Su- 
perintendent of the Methodist Connection, and would take his seat in the 
Conference on a level with the elders. He wrote to several of the preach- 
ers in different parts of the Connection, and informed them of his intention ; 
and engaged other preachers to write to their brethren in the ministry, and 
to inform them of his intention to resign. Withal, he wrote his resignation 
with an intention to deliver it into the Conference as soon as they met, and 
to have it read in their first meeting. He said he was so weak and feeble 
both in body and mind that he was not able to go through the fatigues of his 
office.f 

The Journal of the General Conference reads : 

A request being made that Mr. Asbury should let the Conference know 
what he had determined to do in future, he intimated that he did not know 
whether this General Conference were satisfied with his former services. 
A member proposed that a vote should be taken. The vote was objected to 
until a reason should be assigned for such suspicion. Mr. Asbury then 
rose, he said, to speak in his own behalf. His affliction, since the last Gen- 
eral Conference, had been such that he had been under the necessity of 
having a colleague to travel with him ; that his great debility had obliged 
him to locate several times, and that he could only travel in a carriage; and 
he did not know whether this General Conference, as a body, were satisfied 



*Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 32-34. fHist. of Methodists, p. 265. 



288 



The Jthiadrennial General Conferences. 



with such parts of his conduct. Whereupon a motion was made by brother 
Ezek. Cooper, That this General Conference do resolve thai they consider 
themselves under many and great obligations to Mr. Asbury, for the many 
and great services he has rendered to this connexion. 

Secondly, That this General Conference do earnestly entreat a continu- 
ation of Mr. Asbury's services as one of the general superintendents of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, as far as his strength will permit.* 

This action was "agreed to, nem. con."" This was the 
first case of partial cessation from traveling, by permission 
of the General Conference. The law then stood, if a bish- 
op should cease from traveling, "without the consent of the 
General Conference, he shall not thereafter exercise any 
ministerial function whatsoever in our Church." Bishop 
Asbury was now a superannuated man. He delicately de- 
sired to give the General Conference an opportunity to ex- 
press dissatisfaction with his services, if any existed. The 
result was as recorded above. 

The same day Burke moved the election and ordination 
of two bishops. Tolleson offered an amendment, that the 
Conference inquire, 44 whether any help ought to be afford- 
ed Mr. i\sbury, and if any, what that help shall be." The 
next afternoon, this motion was called up and divided into 
two parts, 44 Shall any assistance be given? " which was an- 
swered, "Yes;" and "What shall that assistance be?" 
when a large majority appeared in favor of one bishop. 
Mr. Asbury was also authorized to take with him an elder 
as a traveling companion. The following Monday, May 12, 
was appointed for the episcopal election. Meantime many 
projects were brought forward. Dr. Coke moved that the 
new bishop, whenever presiding in a Conference in the ab- 
sence of Bishop Asbury, should bring the stations of the 
preachers into the Conference and read them, that he 
might hear what the Conference had to say about the ap- 
pointments — 44 withdrawn next day." This was the Eng- 
lish plan, but the Americans did not care even to vote upon 
it. Wells moved that the new bishop, in stationing the 
preachers, be aided by a committee of not less than three, or 



*l. 33. 



The General Conferences of 1800 and 1804.. 289 



more than four preachers, chosen by the Conference — 
" voted out next day." McClaskey moved that the Confer- 
ence determine, before the election, the powers of the new 
bishop, whether he shall be equal to Bishop Asbury, or sub- 
ordinate to him — " withdrawn by consent." Buxton moved 
that the yearly conferences have liberty to appoint a com- 
mittee of four to aid the bishops in stationing the preachers, 
a majority determining, thus extending the principle to As- 
bury as well as the new bishop, and settling the appoint- 
ments by a majority vote of this assembly of five, including 
the bishop. "A dispute arising, whether the motion would 
go to abolish an old rule, the Conference were of opinion 
it would. Upon a division of the house the motion was 
negatived. In the afternoon of the same day, Mansfield 
moved the election by the Annual Conferences of the cab- 
inet of four, "the bishops still having the ultimate decision" 
— " negatived." Thus, by prompt rejection of all these 
proposed modifications, the Conference left the appointing 
power as it was, and placed the new bishop on an equal 
footing with the old. Methodist episcopacy is a joint, gen- 
eral, itinerant superintendency. Finally, on Saturday after- 
noon before the election on Monday, Mansfield moved 
"that the bishops shall have full and equal jurisdiction in all 
and every respect whatsoever; that each and every bishop 
shall attend each and every Conference, and then and there 
mutually preside, and station the preachers: provided, that 
in case they should unavoidably be prevented from attend- 
ing, the bishop or bishops then present shall be competent 
to discharge the duties of the office as fully and effectually, 
in every respect, as if they were all present; that at each 
and every Conference the bishops present shall mutually 
determine and agree upon their several different routes to 
the ensuing Conference." This resolution was too minute 
and complex to be imposed as law upon men having to meet 
the exigencies of Methodist bishops, and was promptly neg- 
atived. The equal jurisdiction was sufficiently guaranteed 
by the refusal of the Conference to modify the status quo in 
19 



290 The J^iiadrennial General Conferences. 



any way; the details of administration were wisely left to 
the arrangement of the bishops among themselves, and so 
continue until this day.* 

The Journal thus records the episcopal election which fol- 
lowed : 

The Conference proceeded to the election of a bishop; the first poll being 
a tie, and supposed delective. Upon the second, there were fifty-nine votes 
for Brother Richard Whatcoat, fifty-five for Brother Jesse Lee, and one 
blank — the whole number of votes being one hundred and fifteen; where- 
upon Brother Richard Whatcoat was declared duly elected."j" 

This agrees with Lee's own account, except that accord- 
ing to him there were three ballots taken, the first yielding 
no election, and the second and third being the same as the 
first and second as recorded in the Journal. Lee's account 
is probably correct, the Secretary omitting the first ballot 
from his record. All authorities agree as to the tie vote and 
the final majority of four. 

Bishop Asbury is the author of the law for the inspection 
of Annual Conference journals by the General Conference. 
On the last day of the session he moved " that a general 
book of records be kept of the proceedings of the Annual 
Conferences by a secretary, and a copy of the said record 
be sent to the General Conference." On the second day 
Ormond moved that the Annual Conferences be permitted 
" to nominate and elect their own president elders," and 
thus introduced a question into the councils of the Church 
which proved a disturbing influence for a quarter of a cen- 
tury. When his motion was called up for final action, it 
was negatived, apparently promptly and by a general vote, 
without debate. Tolleson introduced a resolution for a del- 
egated General Conference, which was defeated "by a 
great majority." Jesse Lee is the author of the motion, 
which prevailed, that no preacher should be eligible to a 
seat in the General Conference until he had traveled four 
years. Motions to make local preachers eligible to elder's 
orders were defeated, but this became an absorbing question 
for years afterward. The bishops were granted leave to 

*For all the preceding, see Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 35, 36. "\Ibid.y I. 36, 37. 



The General Conferences of 1800 and 1804.. 



291 



admit colored preachers to local deacon's orders, though 
the law was never inserted in the Discipline. Richard Al- 
len was the first deacon ordained according to these provis- 
ions. He led the first secession of colored people from the 
Church in 1816, and became the first bishop of the African 
Methodist Episcopal Church.* 

This Conference was one of the earliest of those conserv- 
ative bodies, notable rather for what it did not do, than for 
what it did. Just after the episcopal election, Ormond in- 
troduced the subject of slavery in an elaborate preamble and 
resolution, upon which no action was taken. Friday, May 
16, Snethen moved, 44 that from this time forth no slavehold- 
er shall be admitted into the Methodist Episcopal Church." 
— " Negatived." Brother Bloodgood moved 44 that all ne- 
gro children belonging to the members of the Methodist So- 
ciety, who shall be born in slavery after the fourth day of 
July, 1800, shall be emancipated, males at — years, and fe- 
males at — years." — 44 Negatived." Brother Lathomus 
moved that every member of the Church holding slaves 
shall, within one year, emancipate — negatived. Cooper 
moved an address to the Societies on the evils of slavery, 
which was carried. Timmons and McKendree offered the 
only measures which were incorporated in the Discipline of 
the Church, f as follows: 

2. When any traveling preacher becomes an owner of a slave or slaves, 
by any means, he shall forfeit his ministerial character in our Church, un- 
less he execute, if it be practicable, a legal emancipation of such slaves, con- 
formably to the laws of the state in which he lives. 

6. The annual conferences are directed to draw up addresses for the 
gradual emancipation of the slaves, to the legislature of those states in 
which no general laws have been passed for that purpose. These addresses 
shall urge, in the most respectful, but pointed manner, the necessity of a law 
for the gradual emancipation of the slaves; proper committees shall be ap- 
pointed, by the annual conferences, out of the most respectable of our 
friends, for the conducting of the business; and the presiding elders, elders, 
deacons, and traveling preachers, shall procure as many proper signatures 
as possible to the addresses, and give all the assistance in their power in 
every respect to aid the committees, and to further this blessed undertaking. 
Let this be continued from year to year, till the desired end be accomplished. J 

*See Journal of Gen. Conf. for 1800, passim. J Emory, Hist, of Discipline, pp. 276, 277. 
f For all the preceding, see Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 37, 40, 41. 



292 



The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



II. The General Conference of 1804.. 

The General Conference of 1804 assembled in Baltimore, 
May 7, 1804. The preceding body had appointed May 6 
for the session, but this day was Sunday. It adjourned 
Wednesday, May 23, after a session of seventeen days. 
Coke, 44 as senior bishop," presided,* and John Wilson was 
chosen Secretary. 

Under date of Monday, May 7, 1804, Asbury says, 44 Our 
General Conference began. What was done, the Revised 
Form of Discipline will show. There were attempts made 
upon the ruling eldership. We had a great talk. I talked 
little upon any subject; and was kept in peace." t 

There were one hundred and twelve members, though 
five were denied seats. The Philadelphia Conference had 
forty one representatives; Baltimore, twenty nine; Virginia, 
seventeen; and New York, twelve: while the New England 
had but four; the Western, four, and South Carolina, five. 
The Philadelphia and Baltimore Conferences had together 
seventy representatives, nearly two-thirds of the whole Con- 
ference. Four of those who were refused seats, however, 
came from the Philadelphia Conference, while an additional 
member was added later to the Baltimore delegation. 

The Discipline was revised section by section, Coke 
reading the items from the chair and the Conference debat- 
ing and deciding. The results were incorporated in the 
Discipline, and no separate minutes were published. % 

On motion of Ezekiel Cooper, the twenty-third Article of 
Religion was changed into its present form, 44 Constitution of 
the United States " being substituted for 44 General Act of 
Confederation," and the words, 44 are a sovereign and inde- 
pendent nation," inserted. The case of the five brethren 
who were denied seats led to the adoption of the resolution 
that 44 the preachers who shall have traveled four years from 
the time they were received on trial by an Annual Confer- 
ence, and are in full connection, shall compose the Gener- 

* Quinn's Life, p. 82. (Q. was present.) j Journal, III. 137. 

J Lee, Hist, of Meth., p. 298. 



The General Conferences of 1800 and 1804.. 



293 



al Conference." On Snethen's motion the bishops were 
required to allow the Annual Conferences to sit a week at 
least; hitherto they had adjourned them when they regard- 
ed the business finished. The Annual Conferences were 
empowered to appoint the places of their sessions. Thurs- 
day morning, May 10, Thomas Lyell moved " the abolition 
of the whole fifth section, concerning presiding elders. This 
was afterward altered by the mover, that there be no presid- 
ing elders." In the afternoon, after a long debate, the mo- 
tion of Lyell was lost. On Cooper's motion, provision was 
made for the election of a presiding elder to preside in an 
Annual Conference in the absence of a bishop. On motion 
of George Daugherty it was agreed to limit the appointing 
power of the bishop as follows: 44 Provided, he shall not al- 
low any to remain in the same station more than two years 
successively, excepting the presiding elders," etc.* 

When the letters from the European Conferences were 
read, Cooper moved that " Dr. Coke shall have leave from 
this General Conference to return to Europe, agreeably to 
the request of the European Conferences, provided he shall 
hold himself subject to the call of three of our Annual Con- 
ferences, to return to us when he shall be requested ; but at 
furthest, that he shall return, if he lives, to the next General 
Conference." When called up, a week later, this resolu- 
tion ' 4 by a vote very general, if not unanimous, was carried . " f 

On the question, " Shall there be an ordination of local 
elders? " there was a tie vote of 44 to 44, whereupon Dr. 
Coke moved 44 that it lie over, as unfinished business, till the 
next General Conference," and the motion prevailed. £ 

Slavery legislation was considerably modified. The ques- 
tion was altered to, 44 What shall be done for the extirpation 
of the evil of slavery?" 44 A variety of motions were pro- 
posed on the subject," says the Journal, 44 and, after a long 
conversation, Freeborn Garrettson moved, that the subject 



* For the whole of the above, see Gen. Conf. Journal, 1 804, fassim. 
f Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 57, 64. 
% Ibid., I. 62. 



The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



of slavery be left to the three bishops, to form a section to 
suit the Southern and Northern states, as they in their wis- 
dom may think best, to be submitted to this Conference." 
This measure prevailed, but Bishop Asbury declined to 
serve. The next day, on motion of Cooper, a committee of 
seven, one from each Conference, composed of Daugherty, 
Bruce, Burke, Willis, Cooper, Garrettson, and Lyell, was 
appointed 44 to take the different motions and report concern- 
ing slavery." This committee reported an elaborate statute 
considerably qualifying the provisions of previous legislation. 
The provision for the expulsion of a member for selling a 
slave was modified by the proviso, 44 except at the request of 
the slave, in cases of mercy and humanity, agreeably to the 
judgment of a committee of the male members of the society 
appointed by the preacher in charge." It was further or- 
dained that 4 4 if a member of our society shall buy a slave 
with a certificate of future emancipation, the terms of eman- 
cipation shall, notwithstanding, be subject to the decision of 
the quarterly-meeting Conference." The Methodists in 
North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee were 
" exempted from the operation " of all the rules on slavery. 
The directions to the Annual Conferences to prepare peti- 
tions for emancipation to the state legislatures were annulled, 
and the whole concluded with this rule, "Let our preachers 
from time to time, as occasion serves, admonish and exhort 
all slaves to render due respect and obedience to the com- 
mands and interests of their respective masters." * 

On Coke's motion the Discipline had been ordered to be 
divided into two parts, " The Doctrines and Discipline of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church," and 44 The Temporal 
Economy of the Methodist Episcopal Church." It was or- 
dered 44 that a number of the first or spiritual part of our 
Discipline be printed as a separate part, for the benefit of 
the Christian slaves belonging to our Society in the South." 
This part did not contain the laws on slavery, and the next 
day, on motion of Daugherty, it was ordered 44 that two 

* Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 60-63. 



The General Conferences of 1800 and 1804.. 295 



thousand copies of the first or spiritual part of our Discipline 
be printed off and bound, for the use of the South.'/ 

We refrain, as usual, from any comment on this slavery 
legislation, leaving the reader to draw his own conclusions: 
he has a right to expect, however, a complete history of the 
legislation of the Church on this subject in these pages, and 
this demand we shall continue to meet. 

Coke, Asbury, and Whatcoat were to meet no more in 
General Conference. This was the last visit Coke made to 
America; before the meeting of the next General Confer- 
ence, Whatcoat departed this life: Asbury came to the Gen- 
eral Conference of 1808 once more alone in the episcopacy. 

After the death of Bishop Whatcoat in 1806, and in view 
of the failing health of Bishop Asbury, a sense of insecurity 
with regard to the episcopacy and the stability of the Church 
itself seemed to pervade the Connexion. Under these cir- 
cumstances, "a plan agreed upon by the New York Con- 
ference, to organize and establish a permanent Superintend- 
ency over the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United 
States, and recommended to the other six Conferences for 
their concurrence " was laid before the several Conferences 
by Bishop Asbury. The plan proposed that forty nine 
delegated electors, seven from each Conference, should 
convene in Baltimore, July 4, 1807, "for the express pur- 
pose, and with full powers, to elect, organize, and establish 
a permanent Superintendency, and for no other purpose." 
The document from which the quotations aboA^e are cited 
was " signed by order and in behalf of the unanimous voice 
of the Conference " by Freeborn Garrettson, Ezekiel Coop- 
er, and Samuel Coate, attested bv Francis Ward, Secreta- 
ry, and dated New York, May 22, 1806. Appended to this 
circular are the following subscriptions: 

The New England Conference concur with the proposal made by the 
New York Conference, for calling a delegated General Conference on July 
4, 1807, for the express purpose of strengthening the Superintendency. 
Yeas, 28; nays, 15. Tho. Branch, Secy. 

The Western Conference concur with the proposal made by the — etc., 
etc. Unanimity. Wm. Burke, Secy. 

The South Carolina Conference concur — etc. Two members only ex- 
cepted. Lewis Myers, Secy. 



The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



Virginia Conference, Newbern, Feb. 6, 1807. — The New York Conference 
having written a circular letter to the several Annual Conferences, propos- 
ing a plan to strengthen the Superintendency, the letter was read in this 
Conference yesterday, and a vote taken — "Shall we consider the subject?" 
Only seven were in favor of the motion. The subject was called up again 
to-day, and a second vote was taken; fourteen were in favor of it. It is 
therefore the decision of Conference not to be concerned in it. 

Signed in and by order of the Conference. 

P. Bruce, 
Jesse Lee, 

Thos. L. Douglass, Sec^y * 

Jesse Lee's account in his History agrees in every partic- 
ular with Bishop Paine 's original document: 

In the course of the year 1806 there was a plan laid which would have 
overset and destroyed the rules and regulations of the Methodists respect- 
ing the election and ordination of bishops. It was said that the plan origi- 
nated in the New York Conference, which was as follows: "To call a dele- 
gated Conference of seven members from each Conference, chosen by the 
Conferences, to meet in Baltimore, to meet on the 4th of July, 1807, to 
choose superintendents, etc." This plan was adopted by four of the Confer- 
ences; viz., New York, New England, the Western, and South Carolina 
Conferences; and delegates were accordingly chosen. But when it was 
proposed to the Virginia Conference, which met in Newbern in February, 
1807, they refused to take it under consideration, and rejected it as being 
pointedly in opposition to all the rules of our Church. The bishop labored 
hard to carry the point, but he labored in vain ; and the whole business of 
that dangerous plan was overset by the Virginia Conference. The invent- 
ors and defenders of that project might have meant well; but they certainly 
erred in judgment."]" 

And so Jesse Lee, despite the influence of Bishop Asbmy, 
brought these very doubtful proceedings to an end in the 
Virginia Conference. It was not the least of the services 
which he rendered the Church. 



*Paine's Life of McKendree, I. 184-186. The original document was in 
possession of Bishop Paine, and was probably the identical paper which 
Bishop Asbury took from the New York to the other Conferences. This 
appears from the official entry of their endorsements upon it by the Secre- 
taries. When the plans failed at the Virginia Conference, Bishop A. doubt- 
less retained the paper. From him it passed to Bishop McK., and thence to 
Bishop Paine. 

I Hist, of the Methodists, pp. 344, 345. 



CHAPTER XVIII 



THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF l8o8. 



HE Fifth Quadrennial General Conference assembled, 



6, and adjourned Thursday, May 26, 1808, after a three 
weeks' session. Jesse Lee alludes to it as "our fifth and 
last General Conference," i. e., the last mass convention of 
the traveling preachers of four years' standing, with unlim- 
ited powers. Until the election of McKendree, Asbury was 
the only bishop present. One hundred and twenty nine 
members took their seats, among whom were five future 
bishops of the Church — William McKendree, of the West- 
ern Conference, elected at this time; Enoch George and 
Robert R. Roberts, of the Baltimore Conference, elected in 
1816; and Joshua Soule and Elijah Hedding, of the New 
England Conference, elected in 1824. The Baltimore Con- 
ference had thirty one representatives, and the Philadelphia, 
thirty two, these two Conferences together having nearly a 
majority of the body. The conditions had been similar in 
1804, and it was this apparently permanent preponderance 
of the central over the border Conferences, giving the for- 
mer control of legislation and elections, that brought 
about the demand of the latter for a Delegated General 
Conference, in which all the Annual Conferences should 
have proportionate representation. In 1804 the necessity 
for a delegated, representative body had been generally ac- 
knowledged, but as preparatory steps had not been taken, 
and it was desirable for the Annual Conferences to act with 
mature deliberation, by common consent the measure was 
deferred until 1808. " It was therefore understood through- 
out the whole Church," remarks Bishop Paine, " that at this 
Conference the organization of the Church should be com- 
pleted by some general measures which should effect a cen- 




Baltimore, Friday, May 



(297) 



298 The J$hiadrennial General Conferences. 



tralization of power in a delegated body having supreme leg- 
islative jurisdiction." * 

This was, indeed, the completion of the organization of 
the Church. The Christmas Conference, as we have seen, 
was, in no proper sense, a General Conference. No at- 
tempt was made in that meeting to provide for any successor 
in the way of a permanent legislative assembly. It was an 
extraordinary convention of the ministry for initiating minis- 
terial orders and for the episcopal organization of the Church, 
and when these ends were accomplished, the convention dis- 
solved. It had no successor. The Annual Conferences 
and Superintendents resumed, in general, the functions and 
powers which they had exercised before the meeting of the 
Christmas Conference, modified by the legislation of that 
body. These conditions continued until the disastrous ex- 
periment of the Council in 1789 and 1790. The disabilities 
under which the infant Church labored, for the lack of a 
supreme legislative assembly, compelled the convening of the 
General Conference of 1792, which Jesse Lee and Dr. Na- 
than Bangs, the earliest historians of the Church, agree in 
designating the first. Five of these assemblies were held 
from 1792 to 1808; but, in addition to the growing inequali- 
ties of representation, the wisest and most prudent ministers 
of the Church felt that such a General Conference, in which 
a majority vote might at any time overthrow the Articles of 
Religion, the General Rules, or the Episcopal government 
of the Church, was no safe centre of power or bond of 
union for the rapidly expanding Methodism of America. 
Hence the General Conference of 1808 completed the organ- 
ization of the Church by creating the Delegated General 
Conference, and giving to that body a constitution, under 
which the operations of Episcopal Methodism have ever 
since been conducted. 

The business was brought before the Conference, Mon- 
day afternoon, May 9, by a memorial from the New York, 
the New England, the Western, and the South Carolina Con- 

* Life of McKendree, I. 184. 



The General Conference of 1808. 



ferences — the same bodies which the year before had been 
defeated in their effort for an episcopal electoral college. As 
before, the measure had originated in the New York Con- 
ference, and had received the endorsement of the others. 
Its material part reads as follows : 

When we take a serious and impartial view of this important subject, 
and consider the extent of our Connection, the number of our preachers, 
the great inconvenience, expense, and loss of time that must necessarily re- 
sult from our present regulations relative to our General Conference, we 
are deeply impressed with a thorough conviction that a representative or 
delegated General Conference, composed of a specific number on principles 
of equal representation from the several Annual Conferences, would be 
much more conducive to the prosperity and general unity of the whole body, 
than the present indefinite and numerous body of ministers, collected together 
unequally from the various Conferences, to the great inconvenience of the 
ministry and injury of the work of God. We therefore present unto you this 
memorial, requesting that you will adopt the principle of an equal represen- 
tation from the Annual Conferences, to form, in future, a delegated General 
Conference, and that you will establish such rules and regulations as are nec- 
essary to carry the same into effect. 

As we are persuaded that our brethren in general, from a view of the sit- 
uation and circumstances of the connection, must be convinced, upon mature 
and impartial reflection, of the propriety and necessity of the measure, we 
forbear to enumerate the various reasons and arguments which might be 
urged in support of it. But we do hereby instruct, advise, and request every 
member who shall go from our Conference to the General Conference to 
urge, if necessary, every reason and argument in favor of the principle, and 
to use all their Christian influence to have the same adopted and carried 
into effect. And we also shall, and do, invite and request our brethren in 
the several Annual Conferences, which are to sit between this and the Gen- 
eral Conference, to join and unite with us in the subject matter of this me- 
morial. 

Appended to this memorial were the following official 
certificates : 

The Eastern Conference unanimously voted to concur with the New- 
York Conference in the subject-matter of the above memorial. 

Boston Conference, June 3, 1807. THOMAS BRANCH, Secretary. 

The Western Conference unanimously voted to concur with the New- 
York Conference in the subject-matter of the above memorial. 

Chillicothe, 0., Sept. 16, 1807. William Burke, Secretary. 

The South Carolina Conference, with the exception of five members, 
concur with the New York Conference in the above memorial. 

Jan. 2, 1808. Lewis Myers, Secretary. 



« 5 Gen. Conf, Journals, I. 76-78. 



300 The JtHiadrennial General Conferences. 



The three great central Conferences, Baltimore, Philadel- 
phia, and Virginia, had all held their sessions for 1807 be- 
fore this memorial originated in the New York Conference, 
in May 1807, as had also the Western and South Carolina 
Conferences, in the autumn and winter of 1806.* The New 
England was the only Conference which met later than the 
New York, and here the memorial was promptly and unani- 
mously adopted within a month. The Western and South 
Carolina Conferences concurred at their sessions of the fol- 
lowing year.f There is no reason to suppose that the memo- 
rial was not laid before the Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Vir- 
ginia Conferences at their spring sessions in 1808. But, what- 
ever may have been the general expectation of the Church, 
these strong central bodies did not concur. % Either they were 
suspicious of the Conferences which had unitedly originated 
the scheme of an electoral commission, to strengthen the 
episcopacy contrary to existing law, in 1807, or they were 
satisfied with the General Conference as it was, since their 

* Minutes, ed. of 1813, pp. 377, 378. 

■f" Compare dates, Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 78, and in Minutes, p. 404, Ste- 
vens, Hist. M. E. Ch., IV. 440, confuses the memorials of 1806 and 1807. 

\ Dr. L. M. Lee says expressly that the New York memorial was brought 
before the Virginia Conference of 1808, and that, partly through Jesse Lee's 
influence, it was adopted with, great unanimity. That Jesse Lee was per- 
sonally favorable to a Delegated General Conference is not open to question. 
But it is quite certain that his biographer is mistaken in supposing that the 
Virginia Conference adopted the memorial, though it doubtless came before 
the body. He adds, " It is believed all the Conferences adopted this me- 
morial," but in this he is clearly wrong, as it is not credible that when 
the memorial was read in General Conference, with the official certificates of 
the concurrence of the New England, Western, and South Carolina Confer- 
ences attached, the delegates of the other three Conferences should have 
failed to inquire why the official endorsement of their own bodies was omit- 
ted. The same objection applies of course to the alleged endorsement by 
the Virginia Conference alone. It is a case of Dr. Lee's memory against 
the General Conference Journal, where a very precise and important docu- 
ment, with its several official endorsements, is recorded verbatim. The de- 
cision must be against the Doctor and Abel Stevens, who follows him. 
Moreover Jesse Lee's persistent opposition to the plan for a delegated body 
as reported in the General Conference of 1808 renders it more than doubtful 
whether he favored the memorial when laid before his Annual Conference. 
See Life of Jesse Lee, p. 429. 



The General Confere-nce of 1808. 



301 



permanent control of legislation and elections was assured. 
Thus the memorial came before the General Conference with 
the endorsement of four Annual Conferences out of seven ; 
but these four Conferences had but forty eight representa- 
tives on the floor of the General Conference, while the three 
non-concurring Conferences had eighty one. Despite the 
general feeling of the Church that something would be done, 
the prospects of the memorial were not brilliant. 

The day following the presentation of the memorial, Bish- 
op Asbury, at the opening of the session, " called for the 
mind of the Conference, whether any further regulation in 
the order of the General Conference" was necessary. 
This question was carried in the affirmative. So far all was 
well for the memorial. Stephen G. Roszel, of the Balti- 
more Conference, seconded by William Burke, of the West- 
ern, now moved for a committee " to draw up such regula- 
tions as they may think best, to regulate the General Con- 
ferences," which motion prevailed. The parentage of this 
motion was auspicious. But here Bishop Asbury, who was, 
for many reasons, a hearty supporter of the proposed Dele- 
gated Conference, interposed with a motion, " that the com- 
mittee be formed from an equal number from each of the 
Annual Conferences." This was excellent parliamentary 
tactics, for it insured to the memorialists a majority of the 
committee that was to frame the measure for which they 
asked. Had the committee been a miscellaneously selected 
one of five, nine, or fifteen, the character of the plan 
brought into the Conference for its action would have been 
very doubtful. The Bishop's motion carried, no one ob- 
jecting; and, after the defeat of a motion that the commit- 
tee be composed of three from each Conference, Roszel 
and Burke moved for two, and their motion prevailed. 
Ezekiel Cooper and John Wilson, from the New York; 
George Pickering and Joshua Soule, from the New En- 
gland; William McKendr^e and William Burke, from the 
Western; William Phoebus and Josias Randle, from the 
South Carolina; Philip Bruce and Jesse Lee, from the Vir- 



302 The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



ginia; Stephen G. Roszel and Nelson Reed, from the Bal- 
timore; and John McClaskey and Thomas Ware, from the 
Philadelphia Conference, were elected.* An abler commit- 
tee could hardly have been formed from the Conference. 
Seldom has a committee had a more important work com- 
mitted to its hands. The memorialists had a clear majority 
of two, and thus, by the old bishop's timely help, had won 
the skirmish for position. 

So far the official record has been our guide. It here de- 
serts us, until the report of the committee is brought in 
nearly a week later. Of the private work in committee Dr. 
Charles Elliott gives an account in his Life of Bishop Rob- 
erts : 

On the first meeting of the Committee, they conversed largely on the 
provisions which their report to the Conference should contain. After con- 
siderable deliberation, they agreed to appoint a sub-committee of three to 
draft a report to be submitted to Conference — subject, however, to such ad- 
ditions or modifications as a future meeting of the whole Committee might 
see fit to make. The sub-committee consisted of Ezekiel Cooper, Joslma Soule, 
and Philip Bruce. When the sub-committee met, it was agreed, after a full 
exchange of sentiments, that each should draw up a separate paper compris- 
ing the necessary restrictions or regulations in the best way he could, and 
that each should present his form in writing, and they would then adopt the 
one deemed best, with such amendments as might be agreed upon. When 
the sub-committee met to examine their plans, Mr. Cooper had his regular- 
ly drawn up, Mr. Soule also had one, but Mr. Bruce had nothing committed 
to writing. On comparing the two papers, Mr. Bruce fell in with the main 
points of the one brought forward by Mr. Soule. Mr. Cooper pleaded for 
his own with his usual ability, but he finally agreed to Mr. Soule's plan, with 
some slight additions or amendments suggested by the others. At the next 
meeting of the whole Committee, although the plans of Messrs. Cooper and 
Soule were both before them, Mr. Soule's was adopted by all the members, 
with some slight modifications.^ 

Cooper differed from Soule, chiefly if not exclusively, on 
the point which the latter embodied in the third restrictive 
rule concerning the itinerant general superintendency. 
Cooper was an ardent advocate, at this very Conference, 

*Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 78, 79. 

| Compare, Dr. L. M. Lee's Life and Times of Jesse Lee, p. 441. I have 
preferred to insert Dr. Elliott's testimony, favorable to Bishop Soule, in the 
text. They were for some years neighbors in Ohio. 



The General Conference of 1808. 



303 



for the election of seven bishops, one for each Annual Con- 
ference, thus creating a species of diocesan episcopacy, 
with Asbury, for the time being, as a sort of Archbishop. 
Cooper's restriction accordingly ran in these words, 44 They 
[the General Conference] shall not do away Episcopacy, 
nor reduce our ministry to a presbyterial parity." Had his 
view prevailed, it might have been urged with some show of 
truth that 44 Our Church constitution recognizes the Episco- 
pacy as an abstraction " and leaves the General Conference 
free " to work it into a concrete form in any hundred or 
more ways we may be able to invent," as Mr. Hamline, of 
Ohio, maintained in debate on the floor of a subsequent 
General Conference, which was working under this " con- 
stitution." * But Mr. Soule's restrictive rule was quite a 
different thing. According to its provisions, the General 
Conference 4 6 shall not change or alter any -part or rule of 
our government^ so as to do away episcopacy, or destroy the 
■plan of our itinerant general superintendency ." The par- 
ticular, concrete 44 plan," with all the vitally related parts or 
rules of our government, described then in the Discipline of 
the Church, and familiar to all the members of the Confer- 
ence, (which plan for the last quarter of a century had been 
operated by three bishops, and which, for the next quarter 
of a century was to be operated by five other bishops, all of 
whom had seats in the General Conference of 1808, and one 
of whom, not the least distinguished of their number, was 
the author of the restrictive rule which protected them in the 
exercise of their constitutional powers) — this plan, and no 
other, so far as the rules and regulations enacted by the 
Delegated General Conference were concerned, was to be 
perpetuated in the Methodist Episcopal Church. The 
snapping of the mainspring in a watch destroys its plan and 
its value as a timekeeper: it is not necessary to crush the 
whole into atoms with a trip-hammer. So the rule has 
stood, in Mr. Soule's language, in the Disciplines of both 

*Gen. Conf. Journals, II., Debates, pp. 131, 132; Hibbard's Life of Ham- 
line, p. 460. 



304 The Quadrennial General Conferences. 

Episcopal Methodisms from the time of its enactment in 
1808 to this year of grace 1894. By it every Delegated 
General Conference that has ever sat, before or since the 
division of the Church, has been bound. The issue be- 
tween Soule and Cooper was joined on this point. Finally 
Bruce sided with Soule; Soule' s plan was submitted to the 
whole committee of fourteen and adopted, with slight 
changes which did not touch this rule, and so came before 
the Conference.* 

Thus [says Dr. Elliott] to a very considerable extent we owe to Bishop 
Soule the restrictive regulations — or, rather, the Constitution of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church — which exhibits a degree of wisdom and prudent 
foresight that characterizes men of the first mental powers. In fact, those 
who know Bishop Soule would expect from him the wise deliberation nec- 
essary to produce such a measure as the Constitutional Restrictions of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church/j- 

Monday morning, May 16, the report of the committee 
66 relative to regulating and perpetuating General Confer- 
ences," was presented to the Conference as follows: 

Section III — Of the General Conference. 

1st. The General Conference shall be composed of delegates from the 
Annual Conferences. 

2d. The delegates shall be chosen by ballot, without debate, in the Annu- 
al Conferences respectively, in the last meeting of Conference previous to 
the meeting of the General Conference. 

3d. Each Annual Conference respectively shall have a right to send sev- 
en elders, members of their Conference, as delegates to the General Con- 
ference. 

4th. Each Annual Conference shall have a right to send one delegate, in 
addition to the seven, for every ten members belonging to such Conference 
over and above fifty — so that if there be sixty members, they shall send 
eight; if seventy, they shall send nine; and so on, in proportion. 

5th. The General Conference shall meet on the first day of May, in the 
year of our Lord eighteen hundred and twelve, and thenceforward on the 
first day of May, once in four years perpetually, at such place or places as 
shall be fixed on by the General Conference from time to time. 



*The biographer of Jesse Lee (Life, p. 443) cites from the Gen. Conf. Journal, Mr. Lee's 
motion for the final adoption of this rule, and is thus misled into claiming his authorship of it. 
" But Bishop Soule undoubtedly originated 'it," says Bishop Paine, " the above explanations [in- 
cluding the statement of differences between Soule and Cooper] are from the lips of Bishop 
Soule himself." — Paint's McKendree, I. 191. 

f Life of Bishop Roberts, p. 159. 



The General Conference of 1808. 



305 



6th. At all times, when the General Conference is met, it shall take two- 
thirds of the whole number of delegates to form a quorum. 

7th. One of the original* superintendents shall preside in the General 
Conference; but in case no general superintendent be present, the General 
Conference shall choose a president j>ro tern. 

8th. The General Conference shall have full powers to make rules, regu- 
lations, and canons for our Church, under the following limitations and re- 
strictions, viz.: 

The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our Articles 
of Religion, nor establish any new standards of doctrine. 

They shall not lessen the number of seven delegates from each Annual 
Conference, nor allow of a greater number from any Annual Conference 
than is provided in the fourth paragraph of this section. 

They shall not change or alter any part or rule of our government so as 
to do away episcopacy, or to destroy the plan of our itinerant general super- 
intendency. 

They shall not revoke or change the General Rules of the United 
Societies. 

They shall not do away the privileges of our ministers or preachers of 
trial by a committee, and of an appeal ; neither shall they do away the priv- 
ileges of our members of trial before the society, or by a committee, [and] 
of an appeal. 

They shall not appropriate the produce of the Book Concern or of the 
Charter Fund to any purpose other than for the benefit of the traveling, su- 
perannuated, supernumerary, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, 
and children. 

Provided, nevertheless, that upon the joint recommendation of all the An- 
nual Conferences, then a majority of two-thirds of the General Conference 
succeeding shall suffice to alter any of the above restrictions. 

The Conference proceeded at once to the consideration 
of the report, and continued the debate at the afternoon 
session. Bangs says the debate continued for " one whole 
day," and this is confirmed by the Journal. All the evidence 
points to Jesse Lee, though he had been the earliest and 
most persistent advocate of a Delegated Conference, as the 
"most prominent opponent" of the report, both in commit- 
tee and on the floor of the Conference. " Mr. Lee is un- 
derstood to have opposed the whole thing on the plea of 
'Conference rights,' " says Bishop Paine, " and to have de- 
feated it temporarily by advocating seniority in preference 
to the election of delegates." " Others joined him in this 

* This word is probably a clerical error or misprint for general: it disap- 
pears in the final action. 
20 



306 



The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



opposition, and the debate was animated and protracted," 
says Lee's biographer, " but this was the strong point, and 
Mr. Lee led the van of the attack." * At this juncture of 
the debate, late in the afternoon, when the report had been 
before the Conference since the opening of the morning 
session, Ezekiel Cooper, seconded by Joshua Wells, carried 
a motion " to postpone the present question to make room for 
the consideration of a new resolution, as preparatory to the 
minds of the brethren to determine on the present subject;" 
whereupon he and Wells introduced the following resolu- 
tion, " That in the fifth section of Discipline, after the ques- 
tion, 6 By whom shall the presiding elders be chosen?' the 
answer shall be, 'Ans. ist. Each annual conference respect- 
ively, without debate, shall annually choose, by ballot, its 
own presiding elders.' " t 

At this point, a few observations will explain this sudden 
turn of Cooper's, who was a masterly strategist in debate, 
(i) The motion of McClaskey and Cooper for seven addi- 
tional bishops had been defeated. Seeing its hopelessness, 
they had sought to withdraw it, but Pickering and Soule had 
forced a vote upon it, that diocesan episcopacy might be 
killed by formal vote of the Conference. - This action was 
in line with the differences, developed between Cooper and 
Soule in committee, whose report was yet to be presented. 
The Conference decided on the election of one additional 
bishop, and Thursday afternoon, May 12, McKendree re- 
ceived ninety-five out of one hundred and twenty-eight votes 
on the first ballot.! (2) As the next best thing to a dioce- 
san episcopacy, Cooper and others desired an elective pre- 
siding eldership, and this opportunity was considered a good 
one for carrying a measure that had been frequently de- 
feated, chiefly by those who now sought a Delegated Gen- 
eral Conference. (3) The Conference recognized the per- 
tinency of this resolution to the measure under considera- 
tion, and so turned aside to settle first the fate of this motion 



*Life of Lee, p. 442. -j-Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 83. 

J Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 80, 81. 



The General Conference of 1808. 



307 



for an elective presiding eldership. It had no vital relation, 
however, to any part of the report of the committee ex- 
cept the third restrictive rule. An elective presiding elder- 
ship would be a i 6 rule of our government" entering into 
the "plan of our itinerant general superintendency," and, 
by deciding this question before the adoption of the report 
of the committee, and " as preparatory to the minds of the 
brethren to determine" on that report, this last General 
Conference of unlimited and supreme powers, would more 
narrowly and concretely define the powers of the Delegated 
General Conference, w T hich it was about to create; just as 
the defeat of Cooper's proposed restrictive rule in committee, 
and of his plan for a bishop of each Annual Conference on 
the floor of the General Conference, had also contributed 
to the better determination of the kind of superintendency 
which the Delegated General Conference must continue in 
the Church. The final adoption of Soule's restrictive rule 
fixed the character of this superintendency in the most com- 
prehensive, ("any part or rule of our government,") and yet 
the most concrete, ("itinerant general superintendency,") 
form conceivable. 

The step from the facts to these statements is so short as 
hardly to deserve the name of inference; it is little more 
than interpretation. Yet short as it is, we are not left to it 
to establish the conclusion. Mr. McKendree says: 

When the report of the Committee which was appointed to draw up a 
constitution was before the General Conference, a member moved the post- 
ponement of that subject for the express purpose of bringing in a motion to 
authorize the Annual Conferences to elect the Presiding Elders. It was 
done; and that body, who had as much right to introduce the proposed al- 
teration as thej had to form the constitution, took up the proposition, amply 
discussed the subject, and rejected it. The friends of the proposed alteration 
thought the constitution would put it out of the power of the Delegated 
Conference to effect the desired change, and therefore proposed to make the 
alteration before the constitution was ratified. But the preachers preferred 
the old plan, and therefore rejected the motion. After twenty years' expe- 
rience, and with the constitution fully before them, they refused to invest 
the Annual Conferences with power to elect Presiding Elders, and at the 
moment of constituting the Delegated Conference, deliberately confirmed it, 
and continued it f in the General Superintendents, with whom it had been 



3 o8 



The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



intrusted from the beginning. The Presiding Elders never were elected by 
the preachers, either in their Annual or General Conference capacity, but 
were from their commencement chosen by the General Superintendents, 
with the consent of the preachers collectively ; and this rule was ratified and 
confirmed by the same authority that constituted the Delegated Conference.* 

We may now return to the course of affairs on the floor of 
the General Conference. Tuesday morning was spent in 
debate on Cooper's motion for electing presiding elders, and 
at the close of the session Soule, seconded by Beale, 
moved what we should now call the previous question, 
which was lost by a vote of 61 to 33. The debate was 
continued the whole of Tuesday afternoon, during which 
time the previous question was moved twice, once by Soule, 
and postponement once; but all three motions were lost. 
Wednesday morning dawned, and thus far the whole week 
had been spent, Monday on the report of the committee on 
a Delegated General Conference, and Tuesday on the cog- 
nate matter of the election of presiding elders. The fathers 
were not destitute of a keen sense of humor, and the first 
gun of the third day's battle was fired by Thomas F. Sar- 
gent and Francis Ward, who moved, "that the motion for 
electing presiding elders be postponed until the fifteenth day 
of August next," which motion was lost. Sabin and Soule 
then moved the previous question once more and this time it 
carried. Garrettson and Sparks secured the passage of an 
order that the vote should be taken by ballot, and when the 
tickets were counted, there were 52 votes for the election of 
presiding elders, 73 against. Thus in a full house of 125 
members, the motion to elect presiding elders was defeated 
by a majority of twenty-one. f 

Immediately after taking this ballot, Wednesday morning, 
May 18, 1808, William McKendree was ordained a bishop 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church — its first native Ameri- 
can General Superintendent. His episcopal parchment, 
with the signatures of Francis Asbury, Jesse Lee, Freeborn 
Garrettson, Thomas Ware, and Philip Bruce, all clearly leg- 
ible, and dated as above, now lies before the writer of these 



* Paine's McKendree, II. 367, 368. f Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 83, 84. 



The General Conference of 1808. 



lines. His ordination took place at the close of the exhaust- 
ive debate on the presiding elder question, and immediately 
after its decision. We shall not anticipate the course of our 
history; but, at a later date, this bishop, supported by Josh- 
ua Soule, then a bishop-elect but declining ordination, felt it 
his duty to take a stand against the constitutionality of a 
measure providing for the election of presiding elders, he 
and Soule alike basing their objection on the third restrict- 
ive rule. Is it probable that McKendree, ordained under 
these circumstances, and Soule, the author of the third re- 
strictive rule, should have been mistaken as to the purport 
of its terms? 

Wednesday afternoon, it was 44 moved by John McClas- 
key, and seconded by Daniel Ostrander, that the vote on 
the first resolution of the report of the committee of four- 
teen be taken by ballot," and the motion prevailed. When 
the ballot was counted 44 there were yeas 57, nays 64," and 
the first resolution of the report was lost. This carried with 
it the defeat of the whole measure, for the first resolution 
read, 66 The General Conference shall be composed of dele- 
gates from the Annual Conferences." The memorialists 
had won in committee : they were now defeated in the Gen- 
eral Conference. 

Great excitement ensued, for the measure was lost, it was 
believed, principally by the votes of the Philadelphia and 
Baltimore Conferences. 44 This defeat," says Dr. Lee, 
" was a source of surprise and sorrow." * 4 'Asbury and 
other chief advocates of the measure," says Stevens, 
44 were profoundly afflicted." t " The New England dele- 
gates asked leave of absence," says McTyeire, 44 stating 
that they were not disposed to make any faction, but they 
considered their presence useless. The Western delegates 
were in no pleasant mood. 4 Burke's brow gathered a sol- 
emn frown; Sale and others looked sad; as for poor Lakin, 
he wept like a child.' " t 44 When the vote announcing the 



* Life of Jesse Lee, p. 442. f Hist. M. E. Ch., IV. 440. 

J Hist, of Meth., p. 512. 



310 The Quadrennial General Conferences. 

failure of the plan was declared," says Bishop Clark, 
44 great dissatisfaction was manifested; and fears were at 
one time entertained that the Conference would break up 
without establishing any general bond of union among the 
widely-scattered portions of the work. Many of the preach- 
ers from the remote Conferences resolved to leave immedi- 
ately, and return home. It was a crisis in the affairs of the 
Church, then in the infancy of its organization. 4 Had they 
left at this crisis,' says Mr. Hedding, * it would probably 
have been the last General Conference ever held.' All the 
members from the New England Conference, except him- 
self, were making arrangements to depart. In this emer- 
gency he entreated them to remain."* 44 Six members 
from New England and two from the West retired in a 
body," says Bishop Paine, "and began to make prepara- 
tions for their journey. But Bishop Asbury and Mr. Mc- 
Kendree sought an interview with them . . . and, aid- 
ed by the wise and prudent Elijah Hedding, prevailed upon 
them to wait a day and see if a reconsideration of the ques- 
tion could not be effected, leading to a different result." t 
The central Conferences now saw the necessity of action if 
the unity of the Church was to be assured. 

Thus matters stood from Wednesday afternoon, when the 
adverse vote was taken, until the following Monday morning, 
May 23. The subject of the time and place of the next Gen- 
eral Conference being before the house, Leonard Cassell 
and Stephen G. Roszel moved, what was in fact but not in 
form, a reconsideration of the vote by which the report of 
the committee of fourteen had been rejected, namely, 44 that 
the motion for considering when and where the next Gener- 
al Conference shall be, lie over until it be determined who 
shall compose the General Conference." This motion pre- 
vailed, whereupon Enoch George, seconded by Roszel, 
moved 44 that the General Conference shall be composed of 
one member for every five members of each Annual Confer- 
ence," which was 44 carried by a large majority." This was 

* Lif e of Bishop Hedding, pp. 172, 173. "{"Life of McKendree, I. 191. 



The General Conference of 1808. 



a simple substitute for the somewhat complex recommenda- 
tion of the committee, contained in the third and fourth 
items of their report. The question now recurred on the 
method of appointment of these delegates and, according to 
the Journal, Joshua Soule, seconded by George Pickering, 
moved that " each Annual Conference shall have the power 
of sending their proportionate number of members to the 
General Conference, either by seniority or choice, as they 
shall think best." This was Soule's method of closing the 
mouth of Jesse Lee, whose biographer gives us a precise 
and interesting account of the adoption of this measure, 
which substituted the second item of the committee's report: 

At a pause in the discussion, Mr. Soule moved to amend the article so as 
to read, "to be appointed by seniority or choice, at the discretion of such 
Annual Conference." This motion, if it did not put him [Lee] in a dilem- 
ma, neutralized his opposition, and he was speechless. Mr. Soule knew Mr. 
Lee was as inveterate an advocate of the independent rights of the Confer- 
ences, as he was of the condition of seniority in constituting the General 
Conference; and, with a sagacity that has not yet failed him, he placed his 
strongest adversary between the cross-fires of his own favorite doctrines. As 
amended, it maintained the independence of the Conferences, and commit- 
ted to the custody of that independence the very condition he defended as 
the proper basis of representation. His point was gained; but he felt that 
he had lost a victory. But he submitted ; and, walking up to his friend, poked 
him in the side with his finger and whispered, " Brother Soule, you've 
played me a Yankee trick! "* 

Soule's motion was carried at the afternoon session. It 
was then decided that the next General Conference should 
meet in New York, May 1, 181 2. All the general assem- 
blies of the Church had, thus far, been held in Baltimore: 
the First Delegated General Conference assembled in New 
York. At the same session, on the motion of Roszel, second- 
ed by Lee, it was determined that " two thirds of the repre- 
sentatives of all the Annual Conferences " shall be necessa- 
ry for a quorum in the General Conference. Tuesday 
morning, May 24, the business concerning the Delegated 
General Conference was rapidly completed, as follows: 

Moved by Jesse Lee, and seconded by William Burke, that the next"j" Gen- 



*Life of Jesse Lee, pp. 442, 443. 

t By this word Lee means the Delegated as distinct from the old General Conference. In 
his history he speaks of 1808 as " the last General Conference." 



312 The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



eral Conference shall not change or alter any part or rule of our govern- 
ment, so as to do away episcopacy, or to destroy the plan of our itinerant 
general superintendency. Carried. 

Moved by Steven G. Roszel, and seconded by George Pickering, that one 
of the superintendents preside in the General Conference ; but in case of the 
absence of a superintendent the Conference shall elect a president pro tern. 
Carried. 

Moved by Stephen G. Roszel, and seconded by Nelson Reed, that the 
General Conference shall have full powers to make rules and regulations 
for our Church, under the following restrictions, viz.: — 

1. The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our Articles 
of Religion, nor establish any new standards or rules of doctrine, contrary 
to our present existing and established standards of doctrine. Carried. 

2. They shall not allow of more than one representative, for every five 
members of the Annual Conference, nor allow of a less number than one for 
every seven. Carried. 

Moved by Daniel Hitt, and seconded by Samuel Coate, that a commit- 
tee of three be appointed to modify certain exceptionable expressions in the 
General Rules. Lost. 

3. They shall not revoke or change the " General Rules of the United 
Societies." Carried. 

4. They shall not do away with the privileges of our ministers or preach- 
ers of trial by a committee, and of an appeal ; neither shall they do away with 
the privileges of our members of trial before the society, or by a committee, 
and of an appeal. Carried. 

5. They shall not appropriate the produce of the Book Concern or of the 
Charter Fund to any purpose other than for the benefit of the traveling, su- 
pernumerary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, 
and children. Carried. 

6. Provided, nevertheless, that upon the joint recommendation of all the 
Annual Conferences, then a majority of two-thirds of the General Confer- 
ence succeeding shall suffice to alter any of the above restrictions. Carried. * 

In the afternoon of the same day, on motion of Ostrander, 
seconded by Cooper, it was agreed " that the general super- 
intendents, with or by the advice of all the Annual Confer- 
ences, or, if there be no general superintendent, all the An- 
nual Conferences, respectively, shall have power to call a 
General Conference, if they judge it necessary, at any time." 
It was then " moved from the chair," i. e., by Bishop As- 
bury, " that the General Conference shall meet on the first 
day of May once in four years, perpetually, at such place 
or places as shall be fixed on by the General Conference 
from time to time."t Finally, late on Thursday afternoon, 

*Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 89. "f" Ibid., I. 90. 



The General Conference of 1808. 



313 



just before the final adjournment of the General Conference, 
on motion of Totten, seconded by Roszel, it was decided 
" that no preacher shall be sent as a representative to the 
General Conference, until he has traveled at least four full 
calendar years from the time that he was received on trial 
by an Annual Conference, and is in full connexion at the 
time of holding the Conference." * 

Thus has been presented to the reader, in chronological 
order, the entire history of the legislation of 1808 concerning 
a Delegated General Conference. The skillful hand of the 
editor or editors of the Discipline of 1808 effected a logical 
combination of the whole in a section which does not deviate 
from the action of the Conference by a hair's breadth, as 
follows: 

£)ues. 2. Who shall compose the General Conference, and what are the 
regulations and powers belonging to it? 

Ans. 1. The General Conference shall be composed of one member for 
every five members of each Annual Conference, to be appointed either by 
seniority or choice, at the discretion of such Annual Conference; yet so that 
such representatives shall have traveled at least four full calendar years 
from the time that they are received on trial by an x-Vnnual Conference, and 
are in full connection at the time of holding the Conference. 

2. The General Conference shall meet on the first day of May, in the 
year of our Lord 1812, in the city of New York, and thenceforward on the 
first day of May once in four years, perpetually, in such place or places as 
shall be fixed on by the General Conference from time to time. But the 
general superintendents, with or by the advice of all the Annual Confer- 
ences, or, if there be no general superintendent, all the Annual Confer- 
ences respectively, shall have power to call a General Conference, if they 
judge it necessary, at any time. 

3. At all times when the General Conferences meet, it shall take two- 
thirds of the representatives of all the Annual Conferences to make a quo- 
rum for transacting business. 

4. One of the general superintendents shall preside in the General Con- 
ference; but in case no general superintendent be present, the General 
Conference shall choose a president pro tempore. 

5. The General Conference shall have full powers to make rules and 
regulations for our Church, under the following limitations and restrictions, 
viz. : 

1. The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our Articles 
of Religion, nor establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to 
our present existing and established standards of doctrine. 



*Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 95. 



314 The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



2. They shall not allow of more than one representative for every five 
members of the Annual Conference, nor allow of a less number than one 
for every seven. 

3. They shall not change or alter any part or rule of our government, so 
as to do away episcopacy or destroy the plan of our itinerant general su- 
perintendency. 

4. They shall not revoke or change the General Rules of the United So- 
cieties. 

5. They shall not do away the privileges of our ministers or preachers of 
trial by a committee, and of an appeal. Neither shall they do away the 
privileges of our members of trial before the society or by a committee, and 
of an appeal. 

6. They shall not appropriate the produce of the Book Concern, nor of the 
Chartered Fund, to any purpose other than for the benefit of the traveling, 
supernumerary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, 
and children. 

Provided, nevertheless, that upon the joint recommendation of all the 
Annual Conferences, then a majority of two-thirds of the General Confer- 
ence succeeding shall suffice to alter any of the above restrictions.* 

The Twenty-first Delegated General Conference of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, which met at Omaha, Neb., 
in May, 1892, adopted, in lieu of the first part of the report 
of its able Constitutional Commission, appointed four years 
before, what is known as the Goucher substitute, the mate- 
rial part of which follows: 

The section on the General Conference in the Discipline of 1808 [name- 
ly, the entire instrument cited above in full], as adopted by the General 
Conference of 1808, has the nature and force of a Constitution. 

That section, together with such modifications as have been adopted since 
that time in accordance with the provisions for amendment in that section, 
is the present Constitution, etc.j" 

The writer of these lines had the pleasure of listening to 
the very able debate, which closed with the adoption of Dr. 
Goucher's substitute and Dr. Buckley's motion for the in- 
definite postponement of the remainder of the report of the 
Commission. That report recommended that under the 
heading of " The Organic Law of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church," the Discipline should contain, "Part I. Articles 
of Religion;" " Part II. The General Rules;" and " Part 

* Emory, Hist, of the Discipline, ed. of 1844, pp. 111-114. 
7 Gen. Conf. Journal, XII., 1892, pp. 206, 228. 



The General Conference of 1808. 



315 



III. Constitution and Powers of the General Conference." * 
The Constitution of the General Conference, as reported by 
the Commission, contained somewhat more, however, than 
that defined in Dr. Goucher's substitute, which, by the ac- 
tion of the General Conference, has become the authorita- 
tive definition of the Constitution, as accepted by the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church. That the Articles of Religion, the 
General Rules (which embrace the only terms of member- 
ship and communion in Methodism), and the Constitution of 
the General Conference make up the organic law of Ameri- 
can Episcopal Methodism, there is no question. There is 
also universal agreement that the whole of the fifth answer 
to Question 2, as established by the General Conference of 
1808, and cited above, including the enacting clause, " The 
General Conference shall have full powers to make rules 
and regulations for our Church," and the six restrictive 
rules, with the proviso for their amendment, generally 
known as the " constitutional" or 6 6 restrictive rule" proc- 
ess, together with such alterations as have been introduced 
by this process, — i. by the concurrent action of General 
and Annual Conferences by the constitutional majorities, — 
is included in the Constitution of the General Conference. 
Whether the four preceding answers to Question 2, enacted 
likewise by the last General Conference of unlimited au- 
thority, by which (1) the composition, (2) the quadrennial 
and extra sessions, (3) the quorum, and (4) the presidency 
of the Delegated General Conference, are defined, are like- 
wise a part of the Constitution, is a question about which 
there is difference of opinion. Dr. Goucher's substitute, 
adopted by the General Conference of 1892, authoritatively 
commits the Methodist Episcopal Church to the inclusion of 
these four answers in the Constitution of the Delegated 
General Conference. There is much to be said in favor of 
this view ; but in this history, we are not called upon to en- 
ter upon the merits of this controversy as an abstract question. 
It will be brought before us in concrete form by the action of 



*Gen. Conf. Journal, XII., 1892, p. 394. 



316 The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



Delegated General Conferences of both the Methodist Epis- 
copal Churches in modifying this portion of the Discipline.* 
It remains, in pursuance of our plan, to notice the action 
of the General Conference of 1808 with regard to Bishop 
Coke, and also its action on the subject of slavery. This 
was the first time the Doctor had been absent from a Gen- 
eral Conference. In 1804 his recall to America had been 
made subject to the action of any three Annual Conferences. 
The Doctor in April, 1805, had married Miss Penelope 
Goulding Smith, a lady of ample fortune, who proposed to 
devote it to the advancement of the cause of missions, which 
lay so near her husband's heart and her own. In June, 
1805, Dr. Coke addressed a circular to the American preach- 
ers, saying: "As long as he [Asbury] can regularly visit 
the seven Annual Conferences, you do not want me. But 
if he was so debilitated that he could not attend the seven 
Conferences, I should be willing to come over to you for 
life, on the express condition that the seven Conferences 
should be divided betwixt us [Asbury and himself], three 
and four, and four and three, each of us changing our divis- 
ions annually; and that this plan, at all events, should con- 
tinue permanent and unalterable during both our lives." t 
This proposal, which strangely and unpardonably over- 
looked the position of Bishop Whatcoat, who was then en- 
gaged in the active discharge of his episcopal duties, and 
which took the plan of superintendency out of the hands of 
the General Conference as long as Coke and Asbury were 
both alive, the Conferences very properly declined. Bishop 
Coke addressed two letters to the General Conference of 
1808, one with regard to his relations to American Metho- 
dism, dated Nov. 26, 1807, and the other, dated Jan. 29, 
1808, explanatory of his negotiations with Bishop White, in 
1 791, which, in 1804, and afterwards, through a breach of 

*For details, see Gen. Conf. Journal, XII., 1892, pp. 94, 132, 170, 206, 227, 
228, 390-400. For the debates, see Daily Christian Advocate, 1892, for May 
11, 12, and 13. 

•j"An original copy of this circular, which Dr. Coke printed, addressed to 
Martin Ruter, lies before nie. 



The General Conference of 1808. 



317 



confidence, had become public and had excited much " un- 
circumcised rejoicing" in the Protestant Episcopal body. 
These two letters, together with an address from the British 
Conference, were referred to two committees, one to report 
on the case of Dr. Coke, and one on correspondence.* 

In his second letter, Coke briefly recapitulates the contents 
of the first, " that if you judged that my being with you 
wonld help to preserve your union, and if I was allowed to 
give my opinion or judgment on every station of the preach- 
ers as far as I chose, and upon everything else that could 
come under the inspection of the bishops, or superintend- 
ents, you might call me, and we would settle our affairs in 
Europe as soon as possible and sail for America and be with 
you for life. Without your compliance in the latter point — 
namely, in respect to a full right in giving my judgment — I 
should be so far from being useful in preserving union that I 
should merely fill the place of a preacher." He explains at 
length his proposals for union with the Protestant Episcopal 
Church. In simple justice to Dr. Coke we must remember ( 1 ) 
that his office as a Methodist bishop did not deprive him of 
his position as a presbyter in the Church of England, which 
character he maintained, like Wesley, to the day of his death ; 
(2) that the disastrous experiment of the Council had just 
failed; (3) that the O 'Kelly and Hammett schisms were 
threatening the unity of American Methodism; (4) that no 
General Conference had yet been established; (5) that there 
was alienation between Asbury and Coke; and (6) that be- 
fore his departure from the continent, Coke learned of Wes- 
ley's death, and was alarmed for the stability of English, no 
less than of American, Methodism. After mentioning most of 
these points, Coke, in his letter to the General Conference 
of 1808, continues: 

I did verily believe then that, under God, the Connection would be more 
likely to be saved from convulsions by a union with the old Episcopal Church 
than any other way — not by a dereliction of ordination, sacraments, and the 
Methodist Discipline, but by a junction on proper terms. Bishop White, in 
two interviews 1 had with him in Philadelphia, gave me reason to believe 



*Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 73. 



318 The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



that this junction might be accomplished with ease. Dr. Magaw was per- 
fectly sure of it. Indeed (if Mr. Ogden, of New Jersey, did not mistake in 
the information he gave me), a canon passed the House of Bishops of the 
old Episcopal Church in favor of it. Bishop Madison, according to the same 
information, took the canon to the lower house. " But it was there thrown 
out," said Mr. Ogden, to whom I explained the whole business, "because 
they did not understand the full meaning of it." Mr. Ogden added that he 
spoke against it because he did not understand it, but that it would have met 
with his warm support had he understood the full intention of it. 

I had provided in the fullest manner in my indispensable, necessary con- 
ditions for the security and, I may say, for the independence of our disci- 
pline and places of worship. But I thought (perhaps erroneously, and I be- 
lieve so now) that our field of action would have been exceedingly enlarged 
by that junction, and that myriads would have attended our ministry in con- 
sequence of it who were at that time much prejudiced against us. All 
things unitedly considered led me to write the letter and meet Bishop 
White and Dr. Magaw on the subject in Philadelphia. . . . Therefore, 
I have no doubt but my consecration of Bishop Asbury was perfectly valid, 
and would have been so even if he had been reconsecrated. I never did ap- 
ply to the general convention or any other convention for reconsecration. I 
never intended that either Bishop Asbury or myself should give up our 
episcopal office if the junction were to take place. 

Bishop Coke's letter to Dr. White had closed with the re- 
quest, " that if you have no thoughts of improving this pro- 
posal, you will burn this letter and take no more notice of 
it." On the contrary, in later years it was published by rep- 
resentatives of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in a dioce- 
san controversy. In his Memoirs,* Bishop White says, 
'* Dr. Coke's letter was answered by the author with the re- 
serve which seemed incumbent on one who was incompetent 
to decide with effect on the proposal made." No doubt 
the good Bishop of Pennsylvania, in later years, regarded 
this as a fair account of his share in a correspondence 
which issued in nothing. But in his reply to Bishop Coke, 
he said, " I can say of the one and the other [of two diffi- 
culties mentioned by Coke] that I do not think them insu- 
perable, provided there be a conciliatory disposition on both 
sides," and again, "In this situation, it is rather to be ex- 
pected that distinct Churches, agreeing in fundamentals, 
should make mutual sacrifices for a union than that any 
Church should divide into two bodies without a difference 



* Page 197. 



The General Conference of 1808. 



being even alleged to exist in any leading point. For the pre- 
venting of this the measures which you may propose cannot 
failo f success, unless there be on one side, or on both, a most 
lam entable deficiency of Christian temper. As a matter of 
fact, Bishop Madison's proposals for union passed the House 
of Bishops — consisting then of four persons, Seabury, White, 
Provoost, and Madison — in the General Convention of 1792; 
but were thrown out in the House of Clerical and Lay Dep- 
uties.* 

Commenting on this transaction a judicious authority says: 

It was to be a union, where both parties made concessions and got advan- 
tages, but neither was absorbed. . . He [Coke] verily thought each 
Church could bring to the other some element of strength in their day 
of weakness. . . . The worst, the inexcusable part of this pragmatism 
is that Asbury was at his side when Coke wrote the letter, and was not taken 
into his confidence."]" 

Coke's letter to White bore date, April 24, 1791. April 
25, Asbury records in his Journal, " I found the Doctor had 
much changed his sentiments since his last visit to this con- 
tinent, and that these impressions still continued. I hope to 
be enabled to give up all I dare for peace sake, and to please 
all men for their good to edification." Thus Asbury was in 
an approachable mood, and Coke missed his opportunity. 
He declares, however, in his letter to the General Conference, 
that at Newcastle, Del., before sailing for England, he laid 
the matter before Asbury, " who, with that caution which 
peculiarly characterizes him, gave me no decisive opinion 
on the subject." 

The final form of the action of the General Conference of 
1808 in Bishop Coke's case was: 

That the General Conference do agree and consent that Dr. Coke may 
continue in Europe till he be called to the United States by the General 
Conference, or by all the Annual Conferences, respectively; that we retain 
a grateful remembrance of the services and labors of Dr. Coke among us, 
and the thanks of this Conference are hereby acknowledged to him, and to 
God, for all his labors of love toward us, from the time he first left his native 
country to serve us; that Dr. Coke's name shall be retained on our Minutes 
after the name of the Bishops in a N. B. — " Dr. Coke, at the request of the Brit- 
ish Conference, and by the consent of General Conference, resides in Eu- 



* Bishop White's Memoirs, pp. 195-199. f McTyeire, Hist, of Meth., p. 516. 



320 The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



rope;" he is not to exercise the office of superintendent or bishop among us 
in the United States until he be recalled by the General Conference, or by 
all the annual conferences respectively; that the committee of correspond- 
ence be and are hereby directed to draft two letters, one to the British Con- 
ference, the other to Dr. Coke, in answer to their respective letters to us, 
and therein communicating to them respectively the contents of the above 
resolutions.* 

In his earlier letter to the General Conference Dr. Coke 
had suggested an " N. B. Dr. Coke (or Bishop Coke, as 
you please) resides in Europe till he be called to the States 
by the General Conference or by the Annual Conferences," 
and thus the final action in 1808 was conformed very closely 
to his wishes. In their reply to Dr. Coke, the committee of 
correspondence say, among other things: 

Your two letters were respectfully received and had a salutary effect 
upon our minds. . . . You may be assured that we feel an affectionate 
regard for you; that we gratefully remember your repeated labors of love 
toward us; and that we sensibly feel our obligations for the services you 
have rendered us. ... In full Conference, of near one hundred and 
thirty members, we entered into a very long conversation, and very serious 
and solemn debate upon sundry resolutions which were laid before us rela- 
tive to your case. Probably on no former occasion, in any Conference in 
America, was so much said in defense of your character and to your honor 
as a ministerial servant of God and his Church. Your worth, your labors, 
your disinterested services, fatigues, dangers, and difficulties to serve your 
American brethren were set forth pathetically, and urged with the force of 
reason and truth in an argumentative manner; and our candid and impar- 
tial judgments were consti-ained to yield to the conclusion that we were 
bound by the ties of moral and religious obligations to treat you most re- 
spectfully, and to retain a grateful remembrance of all your labors of love 
toward us."j* 

Thus amicably ended, as the event proved, relations which 
dated back to 1784. That Bishop Coke's prudence was not 
equal to his zeal, and that he more than once needlessly 
strained his relations with the American Conference, must 
be allowed by all, For the purposes of our history, these 
relations, as reviewed in detail in our pages for a quarter of 
a century from 1784 to 1808, may be summed up in the fol- 
lowing paragraphs: 

1. During the whole period of Bishop Coke's visits to 



*Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 75, 76. | See Bang's Hist. M. E. Ch., II. 196-226. 



The General Conference of 1808. 



321 



America, from 1784 to 1804, his episcopal character was 
never impeached, nor was he for a single day disqualified 
for the performance of any episcopal duty: he presided m 
every general assembly of the preachers from the Christmas 
Conference of 1784 to the General Conference of 1804, in- 
clusive ; and in the Annual Conferences where he was pres- 
ent exercised his episcopal functions of presidency and or- 
dination. 

2. Bishop Coke's affairs came under review in General 
Conferences of the original unlimited and supreme order 
only, working under no constitution, and confessedly com- 
petent to the entire abolition of both the doctrines and the 
government of the Church ; consequently, had such a Gen- 
eral Conference deprived Bishop Coke, even temporarily, of 
his episcopal character or functions, when he was present on 
the ground to exercise them — which no Conference ever did 
— no precedent or parallel would be thereby created with re- 
gard to the prerogatives of a General Conference exercising 
delegated and constitutionally limited powers. 

3. Bishop Coke was never more than a visitor to America. 
His relations to Ecumenical Methodism were unique, and 
have had no parallel, at the time, before, or since. Almost 
all, if not all, of the actions of General Conferences in his case 
were taken on his own initiative, and concerning questions 
which he himself raised, growing out of his relations to both 
Methodisms. Most of these questions would have been set- 
tled tacitly and by common consent in a manner to meet his 
approval, as many of them were by express action, had not 
the Bishop's imprudence hurried him into formal demands 
at inopportune times, when his relations were complicated 
with other questions before the Conference, such as the 
election and powers of new bishops, etc. 

4. From the beginning of General Conferences in 1792, 
the law has been that a bishop might cease from traveling 
by the consent of the General Conference. Coke's circum- 
stances were such that it was simply impossible for him to 
travel at large as Asbury did. His service could not be 

21 



322 The Quadrennial General Conferences. 



continuous. The successive permissions given to him, 
therefore, to render a limited service, with which the Con- 
ference and the Connexion would be content, were legally 
of the nature of " consent by the General Conference" for 
a bishop to " cease from traveling at large among the peo- 
ple." * The action is thus of a piece with that which takes 
place at nearly every General Conference when our aged 
and worn out bishops make formal application for permission 
to cease from traveling. The law has never made sickness 
and infirmity the sole ground upon which this permission 
may be granted. In Coke's case, it was given on the 
ground of necessary foreign residence. In every case, the 
General Conference is the sole judge of the sufficiency of 
the ground. 

5. Notwithstanding the frequent imprudences of Bishop 
Coke, and the uncertainties which attached to our episco- 
pacy and the whole government of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, until the adoption of the Constitution of 1808, the 
successive General Conferences, of unlimited powers, treat- 
ed Bishop Coke, not with severity, but with the utmost kind- 
ness and consideration, frequently seeking to obtain or to re- 
tain his permanent services, which, with the best intentions, 
he was never able to give. Finally, when satisfied after re- 
peated experiment that such continuous service could not be 
rendered by Bishop Coke in America, notwithstanding his 
willing engagements to that end, and when his standing was 
greatly prejudiced and complicated by the discovery of his 
ill-advised and most unfortunate negotiations with Dr. White, 
the General Conference respectfully and affectionately con- 
sented to Bishop Coke's foreign residence and service, add- 
ing an official proviso, which contemplated the contingency 
of his recall to episcopal duty and station in America. 

With regard to slavery, on motion of Roszel and Ware, it 
was determined " that the first two paragraphs of the section 
on slavery be retained in our Discipline ; and that the Gen- 
eral Conference authorize each Annual Conference to form 



* Discipline of 1792. 



The General Conference of 1808. 



323 



their own regulations relative to buying and selling slaves. " * 
This action was taken apparently without debate or division. 
Thus all that related to slaveholding among private members 
was struck out, and the action recorded above became para- 
graph 3. It was also 44 moved from the chair," that is, by 
Bishop Asbury, 44 that there be one thousand forms of Disci- 
pline prepared for the use of the South Carolina Conference, 
in which the section and rule on slavery be left out," and 
this motion, too, was carried, as it seems, unanimously and 
without debate. t Dictated by the experience and prudence 
of Bishop Asbury, though this measure was, 

Here were two codes of Discipline, put forth as law by the same ecclesi- 
astical legislature, and intended to operate for the promotion of unity and 
uniformity among the same people! ... In 1808 the Discipline itself 
was expurgated [of both the " general rule " and the section of statutory 
law]; and, by special enactment, exempted from conveying the laws of the 
Church to a select circle of its members. Doubtless there was benevolence 
intended by this measure; but it presents such an anomaly in legislation, as 
tempts us to blush at every aspect in which it presents the legislative acumen 
of our fathers. Was it from this feeling, or from unwillingness to circulate 
this great disparaging fact of their pro-slavery affinities after all, that Dr. 
Bangs omits all reference to the subject in his account of the General Con- 
ference of 1808? J 

This dangerous and unjustifiable act of 1808 was one of 
the entering wedges that ultimately split the Church in twain. 
Thursday afternoon, May 26, 1808, adjournment without a 
day was reached: thus ended the Fifth and last unlimited 
and supreme Quadrennial General Conference of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church. 

The term 44 Delegated " is chosen to mark the altered and 
distinct character of all subsequent General Conferences. 
This word indicates, not only that the members of these 
later bodies are elected representatives, or delegates, but 
that the Conference itself exercises delegated powers. It is 
an agent, not a principal. It is a dependent body, with de- 
rived powers. These powers are defined in a Constitution 
issuing from the body that ordained the Delegated Confer- 



* Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 93. t Ibid -i I- 93- 

\ Dr. L. M. Lee's Life of Jesse Lee, pp. 444, 445. 



324 The Quadrennial General Conferences. 

ence. Historically the fountain of authority in Episcopal 
Methodism is the body of traveling elders. They created 
the existing General Conference, ordained its Constitution, 
and finally admitted laymen to their seats in the body. That 
body of traveling elders saw fit to place (1) the doctrines, 
(2) the General Rules, (3) the Episcopacy, or itinerant gen- 
eral superintendency, according to the ''plan" then existing 
in the Church, (4) the rights of ministers and members to 
formal trial and appeal, (5) the produce of funds and plants 
originating with and sustained by the traveling preachers, 
and (6) the ratio of representation in the delegated body* 
beyond the reach of the new General Conference. Of these 
six restrictive rules, one only protects an integral part of the 
government of the Church — the Episcopacy — which the 
Church had tested for a quarter of a century, from modifi- 
cation by the Delegated Conference. This branch of the 
government is best described as 44 executive," since here is 
lodged the duty of administering the 44 rules and regulations" 
enacted by the General Conference in the exercise of its 
constitutional powers. If sometimes it is said that the Epis- 
copacy and the General Conference are coordinate depart- 
ments of our government, it is not meant to raise the ques- 
tion of their relative importance, or even to stress the analo- 
gies of civil government, but only to express the fact that 
the Episcopacy holds a charter from the same body of eld- 
ers that created the present General Conference. By law 
existing then and ever since, the Episcopacy is responsible to 
the General Conference for the execution of all statutes en- 
acted according to its constitutionally delegated powers. 
Should a difference of view arise as to the construction of 
these powers, the appeal would lie in equity to the body of 
elders from whom the Episcopacy holds its charter and the 
General Conference its constitution. How this problem has 
been wrought out in the later history of the Church our next 
Book will show. 



BOOK VI. 



The Delegated General Conferences of the 
Undivided Methodist Episcopal Church. 

I. The First and Second Delegated General Con- 
ferences, l8l2 AND l8l6. 
II. The Third Delegated General Conference, and 
Mr. Soule's First Election to the Episcopacy, 
1820. 

III. The Quadrennium, 1820-1824: the Contrasted 

Governments of the Two Episcopal Methodisms. 

IV. The Fourth and Fifth Delegated General Con- 

ferences, and the Intervening Quadrennium, 
1824-1828. 

V. The Sixth and Seventh Delegated General Con- 
ferences, 1832 and 1836: Conclusion. 

(325) 



CHAPTER XIX. 

THE FIRST AND SECOND DELEGATED GENERAL CONFER- 
ENCES, l8l2 AND l8l6. 



THE First Delegated General Conference of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church met, according to appointment, 
in John Street Church, in the city of New York, May 1, 
181 2, and adjourned May 22. It was composed of ninety 
delegates from eight Conferences, of whom the Philadelphia 
and Baltimore Conferences had less than one third. The 
Genesee Conference had been created by the two Bishops 
in 1809, without warrant from the General Conference of 
1808; though in 1796 it had been provided, " that the Bish- 
ops shall have authority to appoint other Yearly Conferences 
in the interval of the General Conference." This grant of 
power, however, appears never to have been inserted in the 
Discipline ; and a great outcry was raised against this exer- 
cise of episcopal authority, but Bishop Asbury declares it 
"was one of the most judicious acts of our Episcopacy." 
The question of the constitutionality of this proceeding of 
the Bishops was expressly raised in the Virginia Confer- 
ence, however, and Bishop Asbury passed the matter 
around to all the Annual Conferences for decision, and the 
course of the Bishops was approved. The General Confer- 
ence of 1812 also passed a resolution, " that the Genesee 
Annual Conference is a legally constituted and organized 
Conference;" but it was the last time an Annual Confer- 
ence was organized in this way. 

Alternate or reserve delegates had been elected by the 
New England Conference, and these were recognized and 
seated in the place of absent principals: this precedent has 
been received as sufficient legal warrant for the continuance 
of the practice in both Episcopal Methodisms to this day. 

(327) ' 



328 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



This was the first Conference under the Constitution; 
but, just as the government of 1784 was first tested in 1787, 
so the Constitution of 1808 received its first strain in 1820, 
when the election of presiding elders was carried affirma- . 
tively. Jesse Lee was defeated in an effort to have the del- 
egates to the General Conference appointed by seniority, 
and to change the ratio of representation from five to six. 
Local deacons were admitted to elders' orders, provided 
" no slaveholder shall be eligible to the office," etc. The 
election of presiding elders, after animated and protracted 
debate, and an amendment that the bishops should continue 
to nominate until an election was effected, was defeated in 
both the amended and the original forms. 

Bishop McKendree presented the first, formal, episcopal 
address to the Conference, a precedent which the bishops 
have ever since uniformly followed. Among other things, 
he said that the extent of the work might " make it proper 
for you to inquire if the work is sufficiently under the over- 
sight of the Superintendency, and to make such arrange- 
ments and provisions as your wisdom may approve;" but 
the Conference declined " to strengthen the episcopacy " at 
this time. He invited inspection of his episcopal adminis- 
tration by the Conference ; saying, 

I consider myself justly accountable, not for the system of government, 
but for my administration, and ought therefore to be ready to answer in 
General Conference for my past conduct, and be willing to receive informa- 
tion and advice to perfect future operations. I wish this body to exercise 
their rights in these respects * 

This address had been submitted privately to a 44 commit- 
tee of the most respectable and influential members " of the 
Conference, from which some of Bishop McKendree's con- 
fidential friends were designedly omitted, and " men of tal- 
ents of different sentiments as to the polity of the Church " 
selected. Moreover, an amendment suggested by these 
brethren had been adopted,! but when the address was 
read in Conference, 

*See the whole address in Paine's McKendree, I. 265-270. 
if Hid., MoKendree's memorandum, pp. 270, 271. 



The First and Second, 1812 and 18 16. 



329 



As it was a new thing, the aged Bishop (Asbury) rose to his feet immedi- 
ately after the paper was read, and addressed the junior Bishop to the fol- 
lowing effect: "I have something to say to you before the Conference." 
The junior also rose to his feet, and they stood face to face. Bishop 
Asbury went on to say, " This is a new thing. I never did business in this 
way, and why is this new thing introduced? " The junior Bishop promptly 
replied, " You are our father, we are your sons ; you never have had need of 
it. I am only a brother, and have need of it." Bishop Asbury said no more, 
but sat down with a smile on his face.* 

With reference to the addresses of Bishops before the 
Conference, we find several entries in the Journal. Friday, 
May 8: ' 'After calling the list, Bishop Asbury addressed 
himself to Bishop McKendree, or to the Conference 
through him, in a kind of historical account of the work in 
past years, the present state, and what probably may be the 
future state of the work on the continent. Bishop McKen- 
dree rose and replied, expressive of his approbation." Sat- 
urday, May 9: "After calling the list, Bishop Asbury rose 
and addressed himself to Bishop McKendree on the subject 
of defining the bounds of the Annual Conferences." Fri- 
day, May 15: "After calling the list, Bishop Asbury rose 
and requested leave of the Conference to address Bishop 
McKendree in the presence of the Conference. Leave was 
granted. Bishop Asbury then proceeded to address him- 
self to Bishop McKendree and the Conference conjointly. 
Bishop McKendree then rose and addressed himself to 
Bishop Asbury and the Conference." f In each case, 
Bishop McKendree appears to have been in the chair. To 
this extent — once by formal leave, asked and granted — a 
bishop who was not presiding participated in the business of 
the Conference. There is no record of either bishop's of- 
fering a motion or resolution, or taking part in debate. 
The Constitution of the Delegated General Conference did 
not formally exclude the bishops from the privileges they 
had hitherto exercised in the Conference; but when the 
body became delegated, representative, elective, and acted 

*Rev. Henry Smith's letter to Bishop Paine, Feb. 6, 1855: Smith was a 
member and present. 

"f"Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 104, 106, no. 



33° 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



under a Constitution, the bishops ceased to claim the rights 
of the floor. But the bishops seem occasionally to have given 
the casting vote in a tie until 1840, when Bishop Hedding from 
the chair expressly declined to do so.* At this Conference, 
however, Bishops Soule and Morris introduced resolutions. 

In addition to Bishop McKendree's written address, Bish- 
op Asbury made a verbal communication ; and so much of 
it as related to 66 his thoughts of going to Europe on a visit " 
and to " regulations, providing for the locating, or supernu- 
merary, or superannuated relation of a bishop," was, with 
similar portions of Bishop McKendree's address referred to 
the committee on episcopacy, consisting of eight members, 
one from each Annual Conference, who had been previous- 
ly elected. Other standing committees, such as those on 
revisal, boundaries, and book concern, were raised at this 
General Conference, and have ever since been a part of the 
working machinery of the body. The committee on bound- 
aries reported in favor of dividing the Western Conference 
into the Ohio and Tennessee, which was concurred in, and 
in favor of a Mississippi Conference, which the bishops were 
authorized to form during the quadrennium if necessary. 

The committee on episcopacy reported on Bishop As- 
bury's suggestions as follows: 

1. That it is our sincere request and desire that Bishop Asbury would re- 
linquish his thoughts of visiting Europe, and confine his labors to the 
American connexion so long as God preserves him a blessing to the Church. 

2. As it respects the instituting of a rule to fix the relation of ourbishop6 
other than that in which they now stand to the Church of God, we do not 
see our way clear to recommend such a measure: this much we would ob- 
serve, that we conceive it to be a case in which our bishops should exercise 
their own discretion, and, should circumstances make it necessary for them 
to curtail their labors, it will be for the succeeding General Conference to 
approve of the same."j" 

This action was reported and adopted May 9. Previously 
the committee had requested the opinion of the bishops as 
to the propriety of electing another bishop, and, as Bishop 
Asbury had been invited to England by the British Confer- 
ence, the episcopal committee wished to know if he contem- 



* Clark's Life of Hedding, pp. 556-558. | Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 115. 



The First and Second, 1812 and 18 16. 331 



plated the visit. It seems that action similar to that which 
had been taken in the case of Bishop Coke had been regard- 
ed as necessary or desirable. This appears from the first 
item of the committee's report, cited above, and also from 
Bishop Asbury's reply to the inquiries of the committee, 
dated New York, May 9, 181 2: 

My Dear Brethren: Whatever I may have thought or spoken in former 
times upon strengthening the Episcopacy, I am not at liberty to say to you 
at this time, Do this, or that. I am bound in duty to serve the Connection 
with all my power of body and mind, as long and as largely as I can ; and, 
while I am persuaded that my services are needed and acceptable, to give 
up all thoughts of visits out of the American Continent. I feel myself in- 
dispensably bound to the Conference and my colleague, never to leave them 
nor forsake them upon the above conditions. F. Asbury.* 

When McKendree first entered on his episcopal duties, 
Asbury proposed that they should both attend in company 
all the Annual Conferences, as Asbury and Coke had done 
when the latter was in the country, and as Asbury and 
Whatcoat had continued to do, as long as Bishop Whatcoat 
lived. The junior bishop readily acceded to this proposal 
of his senior colleague, and such was their custom until the 
death of Asbury in 1816. Of their first episcopal tour, As- 
bury says, " We are riding in a poor thirty-dollar chaise, in 
partnership, two Bishops of us; bu A it must be confessed 
that it tallies well with our purses." They often, however, 
pursued different routes from the seat of one Annual Confer- 
ence to that of the next, that they might preach and more 
extensively oversee the work. In 181 1 Bishop Asburv at- 
tended all the Conferences, and found time to visit Canada. 
At first both the bishops shared in the public presidency of 
the Conferences, but gradually, as the senior became con- 
vinced of the exceptional abilities of the junior bishop, and 
his own infirmities increased, he relinquished to him the 
presidential chair, and confined himself to the duty of sta- 
tioning the preachers and assisting in the ordinations. The 
last Conference Asbury attended was the Tennessee, at 



* Paine's McKendree, I. 275. The original was in Bishop Paine's posses- 
sion, endorsed by Roszel, a member of the committee. 



332 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



Bethlehem, Wilson county, Oct. 20, 1815. Here he says, 
" My eyes fail: I will resign the stations to Bishop McKen- 
dree." Both the bishops were unalterably opposed to the 
plan of an elective presiding eldership ; Asbury always re- 
fused their aid in stationing the preachers. He was perfectly 
familiar with the preachers and the work and preferred to 
make the appointments solely on his own judgment and re- 
sponsibility. This plan of Asbury's, McKendree refused to 
adopt, and to him we owe the " cabinet" of presiding elders, 
who regularly assist the bishops in making the appointments. 
As is well known, there is no provision for such a meeting 
in the Discipline: it has simply become universal usage, and 
its introduction we owe to Bishop McKendree. When 
urged by Bishop Asbury to adopt his plan of stationing the 
preachers without consulting the elders, Bishop McKendree 
addressed to him the following letter, which, as a kind of 
Magna Charta of the cabinet meeting, is here cited. 

Cincinnati, Oct. 8, 181 1. 
Brother Asbury : I am fully convinced of the utility and necessity of the 
council of the Presiding Elders in stationing the preachers, but you fear 
individuals will make it difficult, if not impracticable, for you to proceed on 
this plan. I am willing to assist you in the best way I can; and, as I am in 
duty bound, so I hold myself in readiness to render the most effectual service 
to the Church. Consequently, I am still willing to accede to the proposition 
which you made at the Genesee Conference, if it may be qualified. If it is 
still your wish, I will take the plan of stations, after you have matured it — 
call the Elders to my assistance, and, after deliberate council, report in favor, 
or dictate such alterations as may be thought necessary. But I still refuse to 
take the -whole responsibility upon myself, not that I am afraid of proper 
accountability, but because I conceive the proposition included one highly 
improper. 

Yours, in the bonds of a yoke-tellow, W. McKendree* 

The Second Delegated General Conference assembled in 
Baltimore, May 1, 1816, and adjourned May 24. A valedic- 
tory address of the deceased Asbury to the General Confer- 
ence was read. Bishop McKendree's episcopal message 
was presented by Thomas L. Douglass. Both addresses 
were referred to a committee to distribute the distinct topics 
contained in them to appropriate committees. As a result 



*Paine's McKendree, I. 260, 261. 



The First and Second, 1812 and 18 16. 



333 



six standing committees were ordered: on Episcopacy; on 
the Book Concern; on Ways and Means; on Review and 
Revision; on Safety; and on Temporal Economy. 

Tuesday, May 7, Samuel Merwin moved that in answer 
to the question, " How shall the presiding elders be chosen 
and appointed?" the Discipline should read, "At an early 
period in each Annual Conference the bishop shall nominate 
a person for each district that is to be supplied, and the Con- 
ference shall, without debate, proceed in the choice, the 
person nominated being absent; and if the person nominated 
be not chosen according to nomination, the bishop shall 
nominate two others, one of whom it shall be the duty of 
Conference to choose ; " and in answer to the question, " By 
whom shall the preachers be appointed to their stations? " 
Merwin moved, " By the bishop with the advice and counsel 
of the presiding elders." * The motion was ordered to lie 
on the table. Wednesday afternoon the subject was taken 
up, and the Conference resolved itself into a committee of 
the whole. Bishop McKendree called Garrettson to the 
chair and retired. The committee rose, reported progress, 
asked leave to sit again, and the Bishop resumed the chair. 
Thursday afternoon the committee of the whole sat again on 
the same business, Bishop McKendree calling Philip Bruce 
to the chair. Friday the same process was gone through 
with once more, George Pickering being in the chair. Sat- 
urday morning, in committee of the whole, with Philip Bruce 
in the chair, Nathan Bangs offered the following amend- 
ment, which was accepted by the original mover: 

The bishop, at an early period of the Annual Conference, shall nominate 
an elder for each district, and the Conference shall, without debate, either 
confirm or reject such nomination. If the person or persons so nominated 
be not elected by the Conference, the bishop shall nominate two others for 
each of the vacant districts, one of whom shall be chosen. And the presiding 
elder so elected and appointed shall remain in office four years, unless dis- 
missed by the mutual consent of the Bishop and Conference, or elected to 
some other office by the General Conference. But no presiding elder shall 
be removed from office during the term of four years without his consent, 
unless the reasons for such removal be stated to him in presence of the Con- 
ference, which shall decide, without debate, on his case. - ]" 

*Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 135. | Ibid., I. 140. 



334 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



"After considerable debate the committee rose, reported 
progress, and begged leave to sit again. Bishop McKendree 
resumed the chair." Saturday afternoon, the vote on the 
measure was taken in committee of the whole, " and it was 
lost, 42 in favor and 60 against it." Philip Bruce, chairman, 
so reported to the Conference. Monday morning, May 13, 
the vote was " taken on the first part of the main question — 
38 in favor of the motion and 63 against it." In the afternoon, 
the vote was " taken on the second part of the motion and it 
was lost." * Thus after being before the Conference for a 
week, and having been thoroughly analyzed and debated, the 
measure was defeated by an overwhelming majority. At a 
later date, a resolution, " that the motion relative to the elec- 
tion and appointment of presiding elders is not contrary to 
the constitution of our Church," was lost.f 

The Committee on Episcopacy formally approved the 
administration of the bishops, and recommended the election 
of two additional bishops. Enoch George obtained 57 out of 
106 votes on the first ballot, and Robert Richford Roberts, 
55 on the second. After their election, but before their ordi- 
nation, McKendree several times retired and called William 
Phoebus to the chair. Friday, May 17, was appointed for the 
ordinations, and Saturday morning Bishop Roberts occupied 
the chair, as he did frequently during the remainder of the 
session. From the Journal, which is signed by McKendree 
only, it appears that Bishop George was not in the chair dur- 
ing the session. " His feeling of self-distrust was such as to 
make the duties of public intercourse, which his office drew 
upon him, embarrassing and painful. For constitutional 
questions he had no taste." J 

The select committee on slavery reported, <£ that the evil 
appears to be past remedy," and that " they are constrained 
to admit that to bring about such a change in the civil code 
as would favor the cause of liberty is not in the power of the 
General Conference." They find that some of the Annual 



* Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 135-141. | Ibid., p. 164. 

JMcTjeire, Hist, of Meth., p. 537. 



The First and Second, 1812 and 18 16. 



335 



Conferences have made no efficient rules on the subject, and 
recommend 

That all the recommendatory part of the second division, ninth section, and 
first answer of our form of Discipline, after the word " slavery " be stricken 
out, and the following words inserted: " Therefore no slaveholder shall be 
eligible to any official station in our Church hereafter where the laws of the 
state in which he lives will admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated 
slave to enjoy freedom." 

The report was adopted.* 

It was made 44 the duty of the bishops, or of a committee 
which they may appoint at each Annual Conference, to 
point out a course of reading and study to be pursued by can- 
didates for the ministry,' ' and ordered that 44 before any such 
candidate is received into full connexion he shall give sat- 
isfactory evidence of his knowledge of those particular sub- 
jects." This is the first legislation of the kind in the history 
of the Church. 

As appears from the Journal of Bishop McKendree, at the 
close of the General Conference of 1816, the three bishops 
divided the work among themselves, 44 mutually agreeing to 
attend the Conferences alternately, thus changing their work 
every year; and for the Bishop, whose turn it might be to 
attend a Conference, to be the responsible president of it; 
and the other Bishops, if present, to be his counselors." 

44 Thus," remarks Bishop Paine, 44 was begun the practice 
of dividing the work of superintending the Conferences by 
the Bishops themselves, and also of alternating." f It was, 
however, proposed by the senior bishop, that they should all 
attend the first three Conferences in company, 4 4 to adjust their 
views and mode of presiding, so that they might adminis- 
ter harmoniously when separated," as neither of the juniors 
44 was acquainted with the general state of the Church, nor 
with the peculiarities and difficulties of the episcopal duties." 
To this proposal Bishop Roberts acceded, but Bishop 
George could not see it 44 necessary for three men to go and 
do one man's work." Accordingly McKendree and Rob- 
erts set out together, and all three of the bishops met at the 

* Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 169, 170. | Paine's McKendree, I. 361, 362. 



336 The Delegated General Conferences. 



session of the Ohio Conference, at Louisville, Ky., Sept. 3. 
" From that point they were to commence their general plan 
of operation. According to this arrangement, there was an 
ideal division of the work into three parts — the senior Bish- 
op taking the first, Bishop George the second, and Bishop 
Roberts the third. Each was bound to attend his allotted 
part; not, however, to the exclusion of the other two, who 
were at liberty to attend officially." * 

In addition to the address to the General Conference of 
1816, Bishop Asbury left, 44 A Valedictory Address to Wil- 
liam McKendree, Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church." The paper is dated Lancaster Co., Penn., Aug. 
5, 181 3, and fills thirty five pages of Bishop Paine' s Life of 
McKendree. Only a sentiment or two from it can be given 
here : 

Guard particularly against two orders of preachers — the one for the 
country, the other for the cities. . . . You know, my brother, that the 
present ministerial cant is, that we cannot now, as in former apostolical 
days, have such doctrines, such discipline, such convictions, such conver- 
sions, such witnesses of sanctiflcation, and such holy men. But I say that 
we can; I say we must; yea, I say we have. . . . Should we go to Pres- 
byterians to be ordained Episcopal Methodists? or to Episcopalians, who at 
that time had no Bishop, or power of ordination in the United States? . . . 
Here let it be observed, that the Methodist was the first Church organized aft- 
er the establishment of peace in 1783, and that the Protestant Episcopalians 
were not organized as a Church until after there was a law passed by the 
British Parliament. . . . And suppose this excellent [Methodist] consti- 
tution and order of things should be broken, what shall the present or future 
Bishops do? Let them do as your noble countryman [George Washington] 
did — resign and retire into private life. It is a serious thing for a Bishop to 
be stripped of any constitutional rights chartered to him at his ordination, 
without which he could not, and would not, have entered into that sacred 
office — he being conscious at the same time he had never violated those sa- 
cred rights. . . . Thus I have traced regular order and succession in 
John Wesley, Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury, Richard Whatcoat, and Wil- 
liam McKendree. Let any other Church trace its succession as direct and 
as pure if they can. . . . Should there be at any time failure in any de- 
partment, such as you cannot cure nor restore, appeal to the General Con- 
ference. . . . Never be afraid to trust young men. . . . It is my 
confirmed opinion that the apostles acted both as bishops and traveling su- 
perintendents in planting and watering, ruling and ordering the whole Con- 
nection ; and that they did not ordain any local bishops, but that they or- 



* Paine' s McKendree, I. 361-363. 



The First and Second ', 1812 and 18 16. 



337 



dained local deacons and elders. . . . Mark! it was in the second visit 
that Paul and Barnabas established order: and why was Timothy or Titus 
sent if elders could ordain elders? And why had the apostle to go or send, 
if it was not held as the divine right of the apostles to ordain? . . . You 
know that for four years past I have, with pleasure, resigned to you the 
presidency of the nine Annual Conferences. . . . Our government be- 
ing spiritual, one election to office is sufficient during life, unless in cases of 
debility, a voluntary resignation of the office, corruption in principle, or im- 
morality in practice. . . . My dear Bishop! it is the traveling apostolic 
order and ministry that is found in our very constitution.* 

Such were the mature opinions and the parting counsels 
of the Apostle of American Methodism, expressed to his col- 
league in the episcopacy. We are not concerned to estab- 
lish the correctness of the opinions, or, in every case, the 
wisdom of the counsels ; but it is the province of history to 
ascertain what, as a matter of fact, were the tenets cherished 
by a man like Asbury, and, particularly, his life-long views 
with regard to Methodist government and its Episcopacy. 
He was not a Presbyterian: on the contrary, he was a 
staunch Episcopalian, of the once common moderate type, 
to the last. In this he was the representative of many. The 
modern writers who would reduce our ministry to a " pres- 
byterial parity," and ascribe their doctrine to the founders 
of our Church, do the fathers and themselves a gross injus- 
tice, when they hang their arguments on the chance employ- 
ment of a word. The early literature of American Metho- 
dism is filled with express statements and arguments, as well 
as passing references, which decisively prove the contrary. 



*Paine's Life and Times of William McKendree, I. 310-345. 

22 



CHAPTER XX. 

THE THIRD DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE, AND MR. 
SOULE'S FIRST ELECTION TO THE EPISCOPACY, 182O. 



THE Conference met in Baltimore, May I, 1820, and was 
composed of eighty nine delegates, from eleven Confer- 
ences. Bishop McKendree presented, as usual, a written 
address, cited in full by Bishop Paine,* and Bishops George 
and Roberts made verbal communications, all of which were 
referred to appropriate committees. The Missionary Soci- 
ety was organized ; the educational interests of the Church 
set forward; District Conferences for local preachers creat- 
ed; slavery legislation resumed; the Canada question con- 
sidered; and the election of presiding elders agitated amid 
much excitement which did not soon abate. 

Saturday morning, May 13, after prayer by Freeborn 
Garrettson, Joshua Soule was elected the seventh bishop of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, receiving 47 out of 88 
votes on the first ballot. Nathan Bangs, who favored at 
that time the election of presiding elders, received 38 votes. 

Three days later, " the resolution that had been laid on the 
table relating to the choice of presiding elders" was called 
up. The Journal is evidently defective, for this is the first 
mention of the subject in the official record. From a mem- 
orandum of William Capers, (a member of the Conference 
and of the committee which reported the " suspended " res- 
olutions,) prepared at the time for the information of Bish- 
op McKendree, who had retired into the country, we learn 
that Messrs. Merritt and Waugh had previously introduced 
the motion for the election of presiding elders. Their reso- 
lution, as the Journal shows, was debated, when called up, 



*Life of McKendree, I. 397-404. 

(338) 



The Third Delegated General Conference, 1820. 339 



almost continuously for two days, when Cooper and Emory 
offered their substitute, "that the Bishops should nominate 
three times the number of presiding elders wanted," out of 
which the Conference should elect by ballot without de- 
bate.* Emory and Capers, who were on opposite sides of 
the question at issue, agree that Bishop George was the real 
author of this measure, as well as of the proposal for a com- 
mittee of conciliation, brought in later by Messrs. Bangs 
and Capers. t This committee, appointed by Bishop 
George, consisted of Cooper, Emory, and Bangs, who fa- 
vored the proposed change, and of Roszel, Wells, and Ca- 
pers, who approved the existing plan. Their duty was to 
confer with the Bishops, and thus mature a report which 
should " conciliate the wishes of the brethren upon this sub- 
ject." 

Of the consultations which followed, we have three ac- 
counts, by McKendree, Capers, and Emory, respectively, 
all participants, and all agreeing in essentials. J McKen- 
dree disapproved of the proposed change; the other two 
Bishops were favorable to some alteration. On the adjourn- 
ment of Conference, Friday morning, May 19, Bishop 
George invited the committee to meet him in the gallery of 
the Church. He, it appears, had stated in a note to Mr. 
Merritt, the author of the original resolution, that the views 
of the two parties could not be harmonized; but explana- 
tions were now made on this point, and the Bishop set forth 
his 44 accommodating plan" to the satisfaction of Roszel; 
the committee then united on a report written by John Em- 
ory, which the Conference passed that afternoon, without 
debate, by a majority of 61 to 25. It included the nomina- 
tion by the Bishops of three times the number of presiding 
elders wanted, from which the Conference should elect, and 
declared 44 that the presiding elders be, and they hereby are, 

* Capers's Mem. in Paine's McKendree, I. 409; Gen. Conf. Journals, 1. 211- 
213. 

t Capers, as above; Dr. Emory's Life of Bishop Emory, p. 146. 
% McKendree's Journal and Capers's Mem. in Paine's McKendree, I. 409, 
410, 415; Dr. Emory's Life of Bishop Emory, p. 146. 



34° 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



made the advisory council of the bishop or president of the 
Conference in stationing the preachers." * 

Immediately upon the adoption of this report, the Journal 
shows that Joshua Soule obtained leave of absence for the 
afternoon. He at once prepared the following letter, ad- 
dressed to Bishops George and Roberts : 

Dear Bishops: — In consequence of an act of the General Conference,, 
passed this day, in which I conceive the constitution of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church is violated, and that Episcopal government which has hereto- 
fore distinguished her greatly enervated, by a transfer of executive power 
from the Episcopacy to the several Annual Conferences, it becomes my 
duty to notify you, from the imposition of whose hands only I can be quali- 
fied for the office of Superintendent, that under the existing state of things 
/ cannot, consistently -with my convictions of propriety and obligation, enter upo?i 
the work of an itinerant General Superintendent . 

I was elected under the constitution and government of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church unimpaired. On no other consideration but that of their con- 
tinuance would I have consented to be considered a candidate for a relation 
in which were incorporated such arduous labors and awful responsibilities. 

I do not feel myself at liberty to wrest myself from your hands, as the 
act of the General Conference has placed me in them; but / solemnly declare, 
and could appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the sincerity of my intention, that I 
cannot act as Superintendent under the rides this day made and established by the 
General Conference. 

With this open and undisguised declaration before you, your wisdom will 
dictate the course proper to be pursued. 

I ardently desire peace, and if it will tend to promote it, am willing, per- 
fectly willing, that my name should rest in forgetfulness.-f 

This act of the Bishop-elect was prompt and decisive. 
The question was not new to him; and on the very after- 
noon when the General Conference passed the measure of 
whose unconstitutionality he was satisfied, he penned and 
delivered to the bishops this clear, straightforward, manly 
document. The candid reader will keep in mind (i) that 
Joshua Soule was himself the author of the Constitution of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church; (2) that, in particular, he 
had insisted, against Cooper, on the exact phraseology of the 
third restrictive rule, which forbade the General Conference 
to " change or alter any fart or rule of our government, so 
as to do away episcopacy, or destroy the flan of our itiner- 

*Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 221. jPaine's McKendree, I. 420, 421. 



The Third Delegated General Conference, 1820. 341 



ant general superintendency ; " (3) that the adoption of the 
report which embodied this Constitution was expressly post- 
poned until this very question of the election of presiding 
elders could first be settled; (4) that twice in his letter to 
the Bishops, Mr. Soule declares that he " cannot enter upon 
the work of," that he " cannot act as," a General Superin- 
tendent; and, while leaving the final disposition of the mat- 
ter to the joint wisdom of the Bishops, professes perfect 
willingness that his "name should rest in f orgetfulness ; " 
(5) that such prompt declination of the high office to which 
the General Conference had elected him, can leave no 
doubt as to the purity of Mr. Soule' s motives and the 
strength and clearness of his conviction of the unconstitu- 
tionality of the act, which, rather than obligate himself to 
execute, he would surrender his election to the General Su- 
perintendency. 

When Bishop Roberts brought this letter to the notice of 
Bishop McKendree, Monday, May 22, he (Roberts) ex- 
pressed the opinion that the Bishop-elect did not seem dis- 
posed to submit to the authority of the General Conference. 
McKendree thought this would constitute a serious objec- 
tion to Mr. Soule's ordination; but doubted whether such a 
sentiment was expressed in the letter. " It was agreed," 
continues McKendree, in his Journal, " that Bishop Roberts 
should see Brother Soule, and report at a meeting of the 
Bishops to be held next morning. Soule disavowed the 
sentiment which the letter was supposed to contain, and 
stated his views on the back of the letter in terms too plain 
to be misunderstood." 

Bishop McKendree has left on record a full account of 
the private consultations of the Bishops: 

The Bishops met early next morning [Tuesday, May 23] and the commu- 
nication was attentively considered. It appeared that the difficulties of the 
Bishop-elect rested entirely upon the question of the constitutionality of the 
resolutions; and it was proposed for the Bishops to express their opinions 
on their constitutionality. Bishop Roberts was of the opinion that the reso- 
lutions of the Conference were an infringement of the constitution. Bishop 
George chose to be silent. The senior Bishop considered them unconstitu- 
tional. The next question was the propriety of ordaining the Bishop-elect 



34 2 The Delegated General Conferences. 



under existing circumstances. It was unanimously agreed that he should 
be ordained. The time was agreed upon, and Bishop George was appointed 
to prepare the credentials, and to preach the ordination-sermon. The senior 
Bishop then suggested the propriety of informing the Conference of the 
state of things. It was approved, and he was requested to make the com- 
munication, and the Bishop-elect, having been informed of the design, ap- 
proved of the course. When the president — Bishop Roberts — had called the 
attention of the Conference, the senior Bishop laid the case before them. 
The letter of the Bishop-elect to the Bishops was read; the conclusion of the 
council of the Bishops, and their resolution to ordain Brother Soule were 
stated, as well as an intimation of their opinions respecting the constitution- 
al difficulty.* 

Thus far McKendree's record: from the Journal of the 
Conference, we gather, that, on Tuesday morning, May 23, 
Bishop Roberts being in the chair, " the debate on the sub- 
ject under consideration was suspended, to allow Bishop 
McKendree to make a communication to the General Con- 
ference." f This communication embraced not only the 
matters agreed upon at the Bishops' meeting in the early 
morning of the same day, but also what McKendree euphe- 
mistically styles above " an intimation of his opinions re- 
specting the constitutional difficulty." His letter had been 
prepared the day before and runs as follows: 

Baltimore, May 22, 1820. 

To the Bishops and General Conference, now in session : 

On Saturday evening I received a copy of the resolution which passed on 
the 19th instant, which, contrary to the established order of our Church, au- 
thorizes the Annual Conference to elect the Presiding Elders, and thereby 
transfers the executive authority from the General Superintendents to the 
Annual Conferences, and leaves the Bishops divested of their power to over- 
see the business under the full responsibility of General Superintendents. I 
extremely regret that you have, by this measure, reduced me to the painful 
necessity of pronouncing the resolution unconstitutional, and therefore destitute 
of the proper authority of the Church. 

While I am firmly bound, by virtue of my office, to see that all the rules 
are properly enforced, I am equally bound to prevent the imposition of that 
which is not properly rule. Under the influence of this sentiment, and con- 
sidering the importance of the subject, I enter this protest. 

If the delegated Conference has a right in one case to impose rules con- 
trary to the constitution which binds hundreds of preachers and thousands 
of members in Christian fellowship, and on which their own existence and 
the validity of their acts depend, why may not the same right exist in anoth- 
er? why not in all cases? If the right of infringing the constitution is ad- 



-Paine's McKendree, I. 422-424. f Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 229. 



The Third Delegated General Conference, 1820. 343 



mitted, what will secure the rights and privileges of preachers and people, 
together with the friends of the Church? If the constitution cannot protect 
the executive authority, in vain may the moneyed institution and individual 
rights call for help from that source. 

Believing, as I do, that this resolution is unauthorized by the constitu- 
tion, and therefore not to be regarded as a rule of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, I consider myself under no obligation to enforce or to enjoin it on 
others to do so. 

I present this as the expression of my attachment to the constitution and 
government of the Church, and of my sincere desire to preserve the rights 
and privileges of the whole body. 

Your worn-down and afflicted friend, W. McKendree* 

That this letter was presented at the same time with the 
one from the Bishop-elect, is evident, not only from its date, 
but from the memorandum of Mr. Capers, who says, " Bish- 
op McKendree came forward and stated his objections to 
the rule adopted, and had read in the Conference a letter 
from Joshua Soule." " This was followed," says Mr. Em- 
ory, "by a formal protest against the resolutions, by one of 
the bishops." f 

Bishop McKendree' s views, as more fully expressed later, 
are thus summarized by Bishop McTyeire: 

It is the duty of the Bishops, as general superintendents, to carry into 
effect the laws made by the General Conference; therefore, they are elect- 
ed by that body, and amenable to it for their moral and official conduct. In 
this way uniformity may be preserved throughout the Annual Conferences, 
and errors in the administration corrected; while the administration, even 
from the very extremities of the work, through the responsibility of the Gen- 
eral Superintendents, is brought under the inspection and control of the 
General Conference. 

The presiding elder, ever since the office was created in 1792, is the agent 
or assistant of a Bishop; is part of the executive government; and in his dis- 
trict is authorized to discharge all the duties of the absent Bishop, except 
ordination. The authority by which the Bishop is enabled "to oversee the 
business of the Church " consists largely, therefore, in the power of appoint- 
ing the presiding elders. In case they should neglect or refuse to do their 
duty, as laid down in the Discipline, it becomes the duty of the General 
Superintendent to remove such from office, and supply their places vdth 
others who will carry out the law. But if the presiding elders are elected 
by the various Annual Conferences, they may counteract the General Su- 
perintendent, or clash with each other, administering law differently in dif- 
ferent places. How could the General Conference then hold the Bishop re- 
sponsible for the perversion or contempt of its laws? One Annual Confer- 



: '- Paine's McKendree, I. 418, 419. f Dr. Emory's Life of Bishop Emory, p. 147. 



344 The Delegated General Conferences. 



ence may sustain a presiding elder in an administration for which another 
Annual Conference would condemn him. The General Conference, in thus 
transferring executive power from the General Superintendents to the An- 
nual Conferences, effectually destroys its own power of regulating the gen- 
eral administration; and the connection between making laws and execut- 
ing them ceases.* 

The ordination of Mr. Soule had been appointed for n 
a.m., Wednesday, May 24. 44 To the sentiments of Bishop 
McKendree and Mr. Soule," says Mr. Capers, 44 those in fa- 
vor of a change took exceptions, held a caucus without con- 
sulting those not in favor of the change, and agreed to arrest 
the ordination of J. Soule. "f Accordingly on Tuesday aft- 
ernoon, after the communications of Bishop McKendree on 
the morning of the same day, and with the announcement 
of the ordination for the next morning published, D. Os- 
trander and J. Smith submitted the following: 

Whereas brother Joshua Soule, bishop-elect, has signified in his letter 
to the episcopacy, which letter was read in open Conference, that if he be 
ordained bishop he will not hold himself bound by a certain resolution of 
the General Conference, relative to the nomination and election of presid- 
ing elders; wherefore, 

Resolved, That the bishops be earnestly requested by this Conference to 
defer or postpone the ordination of the said Joshua Soule until he gives 
satisfactory explanations to this Conference. J 

Mr. Soule had not said, however, that " if he be ordained 
bishop, he will not hold himself bound," etc.; but, on the 
contrary, he had declined to 44 enter upon the work of an itin- 
erant General Superintendent," at the same time leaving the 
final disposition of his case in the hands of the Bishops, at 
whose disposal the General Conference had placed him. 
Thereupon, after further inquiry, the Bishops 44 unani- 
mously agreed that he should be ordained," and so an- 
nounced to the Conference, with all the related informa- 
tion in their possession. This action of the Bishops, it must 
be allowed, if it had been carried into execution, would 
have placed Mr. Soule, after his ordination, in the same cat- 
egory with Bishop McKendree, who declared, 44 I consider 
myself under no obligation to enforce," etc. But Mr. Os- 



* Hist, of Meth., p. 570, footnote. |Paine's McKendree, I. 412. 

\ Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 230. 



The Third Delegated General Conference, 1820, 345 



trander's resolution did Mr. Soule a great injustice in attrib- 
uting to him what was the consequence of the unanimous 
decision of the bishops, after his candid communication had 
been laid before them. "After some debate," says the 
Journal, " brother Soule made some remarks," and perhaps 
called attention to the false light in which the resolution be- 
fore the Conference placed himself. After a motion for in- 
definite postponement, and before the question was taken, the 
resolution was withdrawn. Immediately, a reconsideration 
of the presiding-elder question was moved; for those who 
were opposed to the election of presiding elders considered 
themselves no longer tied to the compromise. Wednesday 
morning, a postponement of the reconsideration was moved, 
but the motion was lost. The motion for reconsideration 
" being under debate, it was suggested by brother Reed that 
if we go into the ordination of brother Soule, it was now time 
to rise for that object;" but at this critical juncture the 
manly dignity* of Mr. Soule again came to the rescue, and 
at ' * five minutes before 11 o'clock," he "rose and ex- 
pressed a wish that the General Conference should, by vote, 
request the episcopacy to delay his ordination for some time ; ' ' 
but " no order was taken on the subject." The debate on 
reconsideration went on, and at seven minutes before twelve 
o'clock, it was discovered that the Conference was without 
a quorum. The Discipline required two-thirds of the mem- 
bers to make a quorum, and it looks a little as if the oppo- 
nents of reconsideration resorted to dilatory tactics. Bishop 
George stated that the episcopacy had deferred the ordina- 
tion, and the Conference adjourned.! 

At roll-call, Wednesday afternoon, all but four members 
were present, and Bishop Roberts took the chair. The vote 
on the motion for reconsideration was finally taken by ballot, 
and resulted in a tie — 43 to 43. The chair properly pro- 
nounced it lost. During Thursday morning's session, 

*Dr. Stevens speaks of Bishop Soule's dignified carriage as at times 
verging on majesty. 

•j-Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 231. 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



" Bishop George informed the Conference that the ordina- 
tion of brother Soule would take place at 12 o'clock to-day 
in this house." Thus the Bishops persisted; but promptly 
" brother Joshua Soule presented a communication in which 
he stated his resignation of the office of a bishop in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, to which he had been elect- 
ed." His letter was laid on the table. At the opening of 
the afternoon session, Mr. Soule "expressed a wish that the 
Conference would come to a decision on his letter of resig- 
nation." It was moved and seconded that he be requested 
to withdraw his letter, but this motion was itself withdrawn, 
and the Conference postponed consideration of the subject 
until the next morning.* 

Friday morning, May 26, a resolution was introduced, 
" that the rule passed at this Conference respecting the 
nomination and election of presiding elders be suspended 
until the next General Conference, and that the Superin- 
tendents be, and they are hereby directed to act under the 
old rule respecting the appointment of presiding elders." 
This resolution, if passed, would give relief to Bishop Mc- 
Kendree, clear the way for the ordination of Mr. Soule, and 
perhaps calm the dangerous excitement that had now arisen. 
After a protracted debate, in which Griffith, Hedding, and 
Bangs took part, the measure of suspension was passed, late 
in the afternoon, by a vote of 45 to 35. Meantime, at an 
earlier hour of the afternoon session, " the letter of brother 
Soule," " in which he tendered his resignation," being read, 
it was moved to accept it; but the motion was at once with- 
drawn; whereupon Roszel and Hodges offered a resolution, 
"that brother Soule be, and hereby is requested to with- 
draw his resignation, and comply with the wishes of his 
brethren in submitting to be ordained." "Carried," says 
the Journal; "forty-nine voting for it," says Mr. Capers; 
" he was requested to withdraw his petition," deposes Bish- 
McKendree, "by a larger majority than that by which he 
had been elected." Mr. Soule's path to ordination seemed 



*Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 232, 233. 



The Third Delegated General Conference, 1820. 347 



now open and smooth, the bishops and the General Confer- 
ference agreeing in demanding it, especially as at the same 
session , the presiding elder resolutions were suspended. But 
44 the bishop-elect" had been 44 attacked in different ways, 
and sorely pressed; " the tide of excited feeling had been 
running high for two weeks, and it had become impossible 
for a man of Mr. Soule's delicate and high sense of honor 
to submit to ordination. 44 Having come into Conference," 
he 44 again stated his purpose to resign," and, adds the Jour- 
nal, 44 his resignation was accepted." This appears to have 
been done, however, not by a reconsideration of the former 
refusal to accept it, nor even by formal vote of the Confer- 
ence, but by tacit submission to the peremptory decision of 
the Bishop-elect that he could not be ordained. The Jour- 
nal does not name, as it usually does, the authors of a reso- 
lution of acceptance, nor does it state the majority by which 
the measure prevailed. When the refusal of the Conference 
to accept his resignation, "was stated by Bishop George to 
J. Soule," says Mr. Capers, 44 he still stated his wish to re- 
sign: upon which James Quinn remarked 4 We cannot ac- 
cept or receive his resignation,' " meaning, doubtless, that 
it was not possible to reverse the increased majority, by 
which the resignation had just been refused. " No vote was 
taken on it," continues Mr. Capers, " permission, therefore, 
was not given him by vote of the Conference to resign." 
44 It was announced from the chair that it was accepted," 
says Bishop McKendree, 44 but that it was accepted by a 
vote of the Conference was not ascertained. ' ' * Many of Mr. 
Soule's best friends opposed the resignation. They entreated 
him by his love of the Church and of constitutional Metho- 
dism, and in view ot the increased majority which persisted 
in demanding his ordination, to submit. But he was con- 
scientiously convinced that he could never perform the 
duties of a Bishop under the new plan, and that in admin- 
istering the law, 44 fealty to the Delegated General Con- 

*Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 235-237; Paine's McKendree, Capers's Mem., I. 
413; McKendree's Journal, I. 424. 



34§ 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



ference would tfe treason to the Church." To avoid conflict 
with the Conference, and an apparently arrogant assumption 
of power, he believed himself obliged to reject the coun- 
sels of friends and to place the responsibility again upon 
the Conference. " It is difficult to conceive," says Bishop 
Paine, " the mental agony which such a train of circum- 
stances would produce in an intelligent, conscientious, and 
sensitive mind." Mr. Soule, it seems, was unaware of the 
determination of the Bishops to ordain him at 12 m., Thurs- 
day, May 25, and was taken by surprise when Bishop 
George made the second announcement of such an ap- 
pointment in the Conference. He hastily presented his 
resignation, and on the same day made an explanation to the 
Bishops: 

Bishops McKendree, George, and Roberts. 

Dear Bishops: The course which I have pursued, in presenting my resig- 
nation to the Conference, may savor of disrespect to you, and therefore 
needs apology. I spent the night in a sleepless manner, and could not pre- 
pare the communications, which I designed to make to you and to the Con- 
ference, in time to see you until after Conference hours. Not having the 
least intimation or idea of the appointment for ordination this morning, my 
intention was to have seen you together, immediately after the morning 
session, and to communicate to you first my resignation, and to the Confer- 
ence at the opening of the afternoon session. But on coming to the Confer- 
ence, I learned that the ordination was notified for this morning; and in or- 
der to prevent improper excitement as to the time appointed for ordination, 
I presented my resignation to the Conference when I did. I hope you will 
not pass a severe censure on me until you shall hear the reasons which 
have led to this measure. 

Yours most respectfully, Joshua Soule. 

May 25, 1820. 

At an earlier time, or, as the tenor and tenses of the 
letter (which is without date,) would indicate, when the 
Bishops first had his case under consideration, Mr. Soule 
addressed himself to Bishop McKendree: 

Dear Bishop McKendree : I cannot doubt you will think me sincere when 
I assure you that the labor of my mind, in the extraordinary situation in 
which I am placed, has weighed down my spirits, and in some measure, 
broken down that firmness of resolution which dignifies the human charac- 
ter, and of which, I trust, I have not been altogether destitute while I have 
encountered that portion of adversity which, in the administrations of Prov- 
idence, has fallen to my lot. 



The Third Delegated General Confer ence^ 1820. 349 



I entered the Methodist Episcopal Church when I was but a child. I 
have grown up in her bosom, and my attachment to her institutions has 
increased with my increasing years. My happiness has been ingrafted on 
her communion, and I have contemplated her apostolic order with admira- 
tion and delight. The constitution which secures her government, and 
guards the powers and privileges of her ministers and members, I have ever 
held sacred. To touch it in any other way than that -which is provided in the con- 
stitution itself, awakens my sensibility and gives me indescribable pain. In 
this state of things the important question is, Hovj shall I act? 1 O that wisdom 
from above might guide my decision! 

I was elected to the office of a Superintendent when the constitution and 
government were untouched; but, by an extraordinary train of occurrences, 
between my election and consecration to office, a law has been passed with 
special reference to the Episcopacy, which, in my judgment, transfers an 
important executive prerogative from the Episcopacy to the Annual Con- 
ferences, and which law I cannot conscientiously administer, because I firmly 
believe it to be unconstitutional, and therefore doubt my right to administer 
it. If I receive the imposition of hands, under these circumstances, without 
an open and honest declaration to the body which elected me, how shall I 
sustain the character of integrity? What shall I answer when, in the 
course of my administration, I am placed at issue with the law? I have se- 
riously reflected on the subject of a partial (sectional) visitation of the Con- 
ferences. I have attempted to analyze this in relation to our plan of itinerant 
General Superintendence 7 , and I perceive a dissonance which I cannot harmo- 
nize. I apprehend that my path, should I proceed, would inevitably lead 
me to a point where I should be at issue with my predecessors and seniors 
in office. I declare to you, my dear sir, that these considerations, connected 
with the train of consequences which must follow, drink up my spirit and 
involve me in a torrent of difficulties and responsibilities which that portion 
of fortitude which Providence has imparted to me is not sufficient to sustain. 
If this is weakness, I am weak. 

Had I been ordained previously to the passing of that resolution, my 
path would have been marked with sunbeams; it is now quite otherwise. 

By many I shall be considered an enthusiast, and shall, probably, sink in 
the estimation of all; but my conscious integrity I hope to retain as long as 
I live. And, rather than practice the least deceptio?i, I will cheerfully suffer 
the loss of all I hold dear on earth. 

From these considerations, the final decision of my mind (not unaccom- 
panied with prayers and tears) is, that / cannot receive the imposition of hands 
without a full and undisguised development of my situation to the General Con- 
ference* 

To every man who spoke to me on the subject, previous to my election, 
I unequivocally declared my entire adherence to the old-established plan, and 

*Sept. 1, 1820, Mr. Soule wrote to Bishop McKendree, "With this conviction [of unconstitu- 
tionality] I might have gone silently and perhaps without opposition to the altar of consecration. 
But how should I have stood in the judgment of my own mind? or how should I be able to an_ 
swer for this silence to that great religious body to which the voice of the Conference had placed 
me in the most responsible relation?" 



350 The Delegated General Conferences. 



that I stood or fell xvith the constitution and the government. I believe no one can 
say, with a knowledge of my sentiments, that I have deceived any man. I 
have betrayed no trust. 

I cannot say that I feel no sensibility at the thought of losing the confi- 
dence of those friends to whom I have been bound by the most sacred ties 
for a succession of years; and if I am doomed to sink in your estimation, 
suffer me to entreat you to consider fully the difficulties of my situation, 
and ascribe to the frailty of human nature that which, I most solemnly as- 
sure you, is dictated neither by perverseness of -will nor impurity of motive. 
And whatever loss I may sustain in your confidence, permit me to beg that 
I may live in your prayers. Joshua Soule. 

Thus the original communication of the Bishops to the 
General Conference of their intention to ordain Mr. Soule 
was not only " approved" by the bishop-elect, as Bishop 
McKendree says, but was apparently suggested by him, and 
certainly made a conditio sine qua non of his ordination: " I 
cannot receive the ordination of hands without a full and un- 
disguised development of my situation to the General Con- 
ference." 

A biography of Bishop Soule is still a desideratum. The 
facts are Mr. Soule's vindication; but so far as I am aware, 
they have not hitherto, in the literature of the Church, been 
presented in such completeness and order as indisputably to 
answer this end. In this narrative, I have sought to com- 
bine, mainly in chronological order, all the data derivable 
from contemporary documents, that this critical chapter in 
Bishop Soule's life may be presented to the last detail. 
This minute treatment of a transaction, concerning which, 
at home as well as abroad, accurate information has seemed 
lamentably lacking, is demanded no less by the duty of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to Bishop Soule's 
memory than by the constitutional aims of this history. An 
orderly array of the facts constitutes a sufficient vindication 
of Mr. Soule ; to which it is hardly necessary to add this 
statement of Bishop McKendree's: 

The Conference, by the vote of a respectable majority, had put him into 
the hands of the Bishops for ordination. In this situation he certainly had a 
right to address a letter to the Bishops, and when he was involved in diffi- 
culties by a subsequent act of the Conference, he certainly acted an honora- 
ble part to inform them of his difficulties prior to his ordination, and there- 



The Third Delegated General Conference, 1820. 351 



by put it in their power to guard against future difficulties. For this letter 
a-nd its contents Brother Soule was accountable to the Bishops, not to the 
Conference. Had the Bishops judged his conduct unworthy of the trust 
confided to him by his election, they would have returned him to the Con- 
ference with their objections to his ordination. This would have brought 
him under the jurisdiction of the Conference, so far as to reconsider and re- 
scind their vote, or confirm it, and order his consecration. But instead of 
this, after a formal examination of the subject, they [t. e., the Bishops] had 
admitted his principle, resolved on his ordination; and that nothing might 
be done in the dark, they previously informed the Conference of their de- 
sign. The General Conference had a right to take exceptions, but they 
should have been directed against the Bishops, and not against the Bishop- 
elect, who was not accountable to them for this act, and was then under the 
protection of the Bishops, who were amenable to the Conference for their 
official acts. For the Conference to undertake to convince the Bishops of 
an error in their determination to ordain the Bishop-elect under existing 
circumstances, would have been proper; and as the Bishops had resolved to 
ordain him, it would have been better for the President to arrest proceed- 
ings against Brother Soule, and invite the attack upon themselves.* 

Saturday, May 27, Messrs. Wells and Capers moved that 
"we immediately proceed to elect a general superintend- 
ent." After a motion to lay it on the table was lost, the 
motion was withdrawn. This withdrawal was probably oc- 
casioned by information given out by the Bishops ; for, on 
that day, a protest was sent to them, against entering into 
another election, written by Nathan Bangs, and signed by 
thirty members of the New York, New England, Genesee, 
Philadelphia, and other Conferences. t The fact was that a 
new election could have led to but one result, the reelection 
of Mr. Soule, and this would have been embarrassing and ir- 
ritating to all concerned. Bishops George and Roberts, as- 
sisted by the Senior Bishop, agreed to do the work of the 
quadrennium, and so the question was disposed of. 

The only slavery legislation was the repeal of the law per- 
mitting the Annual Conferences " to form their own regula- 
tions about buying and selling slaves." The Canada ques- 
tion also claimed a share of attention. Messrs. Bennett and 
Black, missionaries of the British Conference in Canada, at- 
tended the General Conference of 1816, with a proposal that 
the Americans should confine their operations to Upper, and 

* Paine's McKendree, I. 424, 425. f Ibid., I. 436, 437. 



352 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



the British to Lower, Canada. But this division of territory 
and relinquishment of members was declined, the General 
Conference declaring, "that we cannot consistently with 
our duty to the societies of our charge in the Canadas, give 
up any part of them, or any of our chapels in those prov- 
inces, to the superintendency of the British Connexion." 
In 1820, however, many and urgent memorials were re- 
ceived from the Canadian societies, and the General Con- 
ference empowered the Bishops 44 to negotiate with the Brit- 
ish Conference respecting Lower Canada, in the way and 
manner they shall see fit," and, if possible, to send a dele- 
gate to England for this purpose. The Rev. John Emory 
was appointed, and, in their letter of official instructions to 
him, the Bishops say, 44 We are of opinion that the most ef- 
fectual means to prevent collisions in future will be to estab- 
lish a specific line by which our field of labors shall be 
bounded on one side, and the British missionaries on the 
other. With this view you are at liberty to stipulate that our 
preachers shall confine their labors in Canada to the upper 
province, provided the British missionaries will confine 
theirs to the lower." * Mr. Emory succeeded in effecting 
this arrangement with the British Conference, and, accord- 
ingly, Bishop McKendree addressed to 44 the private and 
official members, trustees," etc., in Lower Canada, a circu- 
lar letter dated October 16, 1820: 

It has been agreed that our British brethren shall supply the Lower 
Provinces, and our preachers the Upper. It becomes our duty, therefore, 
to inform you of this agreement, and to advise you, in the most affectionate 
and earnest manner, to put yourselves and your chapels under the care of 
our British brethren, as their Societies and chapels in the Upper Province 
will be put under our care. . . . This communication, we confess, is not 
made without pain. . . . But necessity is laid upon us. . . . It is a 
peace-offering. . . . Forgive, therefore, our seeming to give you up. 

Accordingly a committee of three preachers from each 
Connexion met at Montreal, Feb. 15, 1821, and fixed the 
time and manner for delivering up the several charges 
which were to be relinquished on both sides. 



*Dr. Emory's Life of Bishop Emory, pp. 93, 94. 



The Third Delegated General Coiiference, 1820. 353 



Thus the General Conference empowered the Bishops, 
and the Bishops empowered Mr. Emory, and Mr. Emory 
contracted with the British Conference, to surrender to that 
ecclesiastical jurisdiction a portion of the membership of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in return for a like cession 
from that body. The contract was faithfully executed. 
The constitutional question involved is a delicate and im- 
portant one, upon which a later General Conference 
(1848) pronounced judgment: hence we postpone its con- 
sideration. 

On the last day of the session, however, a measure of vi- 
tal importance was passed. In 1820 the Constitution of 1808 
was subjected to its first severe strain, and a grave defect in 
its provisions was revealed. No tribunal had been provided 
to pass upon the constitutionality of the acts of the General 
Conference. There were many parties in interest, the 
Church, the General Conference, the Bishops, and the 
Connexion of itinerant preachers, distributed in the several 
Annual Conferences. " This want of a constitutional test," 
remarks a high authority, " must be supplied sooner or later 
by the civil, if not by the Church, courts.'' Face to face 
with the practical difficulty in an alarming form, the Gener- 
al Conference of 1820 adopted the following measure of re- 
lief: 

Whereas a difference has arisen in the General Conference about the con- 
stitutionality of a certain resolution passed concerning the appointment of 
presiding elders ; and whereas there does not appear to be any proper tribu- 
nal to judge of and determine such a question; and whereas it appears im- 
portant to us that some course should be taken to determine this business, 
therefore, 

Resolved, &c, That we will advise, and hereby do advise the several an- 
nual conferences to pass such resolutions as will enable the next General 
Conference so to alter the constitution that whenever a resolution or motion 
which goes to alter any part of our Discipline is passed by the General Con- 
ference it shall be examined by the superintendent or superintendents; and 
if they, or a majority of them, shall judge it unconstitutional, they shall, 
within three days after its passage, return it to the conference with their ob- 
jections to it in writing. And whenever a resolution is so returned, the 
conference shall reconsider it, and if it pass by a majority of two-thirds it 
shall be constitutional and pass into a law, notwithstanding the objections of 
23 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



the superintendents; and if it be not returned within three days, it shall be 
considered as not objected to and become a law * 

Thus, by a majority vote, the General Conference of 1820 
agreed to the principle of a veto power to be exercised by the 
Bishops over all enactments of the General Conference, 
which in the preamble was acknowledged to be no " proper 
tribunal to judge of and determine such a question." This 
measure provided, not merely a method by which the Bish- 
ops might carry an appeal from the decisions of a General 
Conference to the tribunal of the Annual Conferences — 
which really lodges the veto power in the body of the travel- 
ing ministry — but, in the strictest sense, clothed the episco- 
pacy with a veto power, which required a two-thirds majori- 
ty of the General Conference to overcome it. We may here 
sacrifice chronological order to topical completeness, and 
finish the history of such action in our Church. There is 
no record in the Journal of 1824 of the action of the Annual 
Conferences on this measure; but, instead, a forward step is 
taken in the evolution of this species of constitutional legisla- 
tion. Tuesday, May 18, Lovick Pierce and William Winans 
gave notice of intention to introduce the following resolution: 

Resolved, by the delegates of the annual conferences in General Confer- 
ence assembled, That it be and is hereby recommended to the several annu- 
al conferences to adopt the following article as a provision to be annexed to 
the sixth article of the " limitations and restrictions " adopted by the Gener- 
al Conference in 1808, viz.: — 

Provided, also, that whenever the delegated General Conference shall 
pass any rule or rules which, in the judgment of the bishops, or a majority 
of them, are contrary to or an infringement upon the above " limitations and 
restrictions," or any one of them, such rule or rules being returned to the 
conference within three days after their passage, together with the objec- 
tions of the bishops to them, in writing, the conference shall reconsider such 
rule or rules, and if, upon reconsideration, they shall pass by a majority of 
two-thirds of the members present, they shall be considered as rules, and go 
into immediate effect; but in case a less majority shall differ from the opin- 
ion of the bishops, and they continue to sustain their objections, the rule or 
rules objected to shall be laid before the annual conferences, in which case 
the decision of a majority of all the members of the annual conference pres- 
ent when the vote shall be taken shall be final. In taking the vote in all 
such cases in the annual conferences, the secretaries shall give a certificate 



;: Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 238. 



The Third Delegated General Conference, 1820. 355 



of the number of votes, both in the affirmative and negative, and such cer- 
tificates shall be forwarded to the editor and general book-steward, who, 
with one or more of the bishops, who may be present, shall be a committee 
to canvass the votes and certify the result.* 

Friday afternoon, May 21, a motion of Cooper and Bangs 
to take the vote on this resolution by ballot was lost, and, the 
vote being taken in the usual manner, the measure of Pierce 
and Winans was adopted by a majority of 64 to 58.! Previ- 
ously an amendment had been accepted that the vote on con- 
stitutional questions in both General and Annual Conferences 
should be taken by ballot. Curiously enough; there seems to 
be no record, in the Journal of 1828, of the action of the An- 
nual Conferences on this proposal sent down to them; but 
since the proviso then required the joint recommendation of 
all the Annual Conferences to secure a constitutional amend- 
ment, there can be no doubt of its failure: the adverse de- 
cision of a single Annual Conference would defeat it. 

Twice, however, in 1820 and 1824 did the General Con- 
ferences of the undivided Methodist Episcopal Church en- 
dorse the principle of the incompetency of the General Con- 
ference to pass finally upon the constitutionality of its own 
acts, and of a suspensive veto to be exercised by the Bishops 
or by the Annual Conferences. It will be noticed that the 
measure of Messrs. Pierce and Winans adopted in 1824 was 
a distinct advance upon the action of 1820. It still permitted 
a two-thirds majority of the General Conference to pass a 
measure over the veto of the Bishops. But in case the meas- 
ure should obtain a smaller majority than two-thirds, when 
returned to the General Conference with the constitutional 
objections of the Bishops, if the Bishops persisted in their 
objections, the proposed legislation was to be submitted to the 
Annual Conferences, whose decision by a majority vote 
should be final. Thus was the proper tribunal for an appeal 
at last partially recognized. Two-thirds of the General 
Conference, or a majority in the Annual Conferences, could 
thus overrule the Bishops. For the Bishops, being a party 
whose interests the legislation of the General Conference 
* Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 267. J Ibid., I. 277. 



35^ 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



may directly and materially affect, ought not to be allowed an 
absolute and final veto. This would be but little improve- 
ment upon the plan of allowing the General Conference to 
be the final judge of the constitutionality of its own acts. 
But the Annual Conferences, though like the Bishops a party 
in interest, affected by the legislation of the General Confer- 
ence, are also made up of the body of traveling preachers, 
who originated both the Delegated General Conference and 
its constitution. They, therefore, are rightfully the ultimate 
judges of any infringement of the grant of power which 
they have made to their agent, the Delegated General Con- 
ference. But the Bishops are the easy and natural execu- 
tive agents for the temporary arrest of legislation until an 
appeal can be taken to the Annual Conferences, to which 
a veto power, in the proper sense, alone belongs. Accord- 
ingly, in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, this want 
was supplied in 1870, when the following amendment was 
made to the constitution by the General Conference voting 
160 yeas to 4 nays, and the Annual Conferences concurring 
by 2,024 yeas to 9 nays: 

When any rule or regulation is adopted by the General Conference 
which, in the opinion of the Bishops, is unconstitutional, the Bishops may 
present to the Conference which passed said rule or regulation their objec- 
tions thereto, with their reasons, in writing, and if the General Conference 
shall, by a two-thirds vote, adhere to its action on said rule or regulation, it 
shall then take the course prescribed for altering a Restrictive Rule. 

The action of 1824, though introduced by Messrs. Pierce 
and Winans, did not originate with them. Bishop Paine — 
who was the youngest member of the General Conference 
of 1824 — has preserved a document, which is in nearly ver- 
batim agreement with the actual measure passed, and which 
is signed by W. McKendree, Enoch George, R. R. Roberts, 
Thomas L. Douglass, and Wm. Capers. Bishop Paine 
wrote from his notes, made at the time, without access to 
the Journals of the General Conference.* His memoranda 
and the official Journal agree in essentials. He says: 

*The General Conference Journals were ordered published by the Gen- 
eral Conference of 1852; the oldest edition of which I am aware has the 



The Third Delegated General Conference^ 1820. 357 



Friday, May 20th [21st], another question of importance came up, called 
the " constitutional test," the object of which was to prevent hasty action, 
violative of the constitution, by giving the Bishops a qualified veto, with an 
ultimate reference of the question to the Annual Conferences. It involved 
constitutional questions only. The Bishops, anticipating some action of the 
kind, had agreed to unite, and, if desired, present to the Conference the fol- 
lowing amendment to the sixth Article of the " limitations and restrictions," 
adopted by the General Conference in 1808, signed by their own hands and 
two others. 

- Then follows, with few and unimportant verbal variations, 
a copy of the measure which the General Conference actu- 
ally passed, signed by the three bishops. The names of 
Douglass and Capers were doubtless added to anticipate the 
objection that the Bishops had no constitutional right to in- 
troduce measures into the General Conference, but it was 
found inexpedient or unnecessary to attach the signatures of 
the bishops to the measure as presented to the Conference; 
and Pierce and Winans, for some reason now undiscover- 
able, were selected to introduce it instead of Douglass and 
Capers. " Whether the subject was brought into Confer- 
ence," continues Bishop Paine, " by the presentation of this 
document, or by another series of resolutions, the writer can- 
not say; bat the discussion of the subject was upon substan- 
tially a similar, if not an identical, presentation of the ques- 
tion." That this was the case we know from the published 
Journal of the Conference. Mr. Paine preserved notes of 
Mr. Soule's speech in the debate which followed, which he 
cites, and thus concludes his account: 

" L. McCombs and James Smith opposed the resolution 
at considerable length, and W. Winans replied in one of the 
strongest, most analytical, and effective speeches ever de- 
livered on the floor of the General Conference. The ques- 
tion was carried by a vote of 64 to 58. [The Journal, as we 
have seen, gives the same figures.] A heavy load was lifted 
from the heart of the senior Bishop. His face put on a sub- 
dued smile, and he breathed freer." * 

date 1855 on its title page. The General Conference of 1854 appointed 
Bishop Paine Bishop McKendree's biographer. 
* Paine's McKendree, II. 35-3S. 



358 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



Toward the close of the General Conference, the Senior 
Superintendent delivered an address, which was stenograph- 
ically reported by Mr. Paine and the Rev. John Summer- 
field. On this point Bishop McKendree said: 

At the commencement of the present General Conference, jour Bishops 
consulted together, to devise some way to harmonize the brethren and the 
connection at large. . . . They thought they saw a plan open and they 
entered in. The plan was to invite the brethren on both sides to vote a peace 
measure which should meet the wishes of all. In order to guard against a 
recurrence of like disagreements, they agreed to recommend to the General 
Conference a constitutional test which should forever settle these things. I 
was pleased with an adjustment which is calculated to heal the past by the 
peace measure proposed, and to guard against a recurrence by the constitu- 
tional test.* 

Thus Bishops McKendree, George, and Roberts — and, 
of course, Bishop Soule and, probably, Bishop Hedding, 
both of whom were elected and ordained at this time — agreed 
with the General Conference of 1824 that the General Con- 
ference itself is not the proper tribunal to pass final judg- 
ment on the constitutionality of its own proceedings, but that 
this function shoul be exercised, primarily and for purposes 
of temporary arrest, by the Bishops, and ultimately, in a 
given contingency, by the Annual Conferences themselves. 
In an able article on the " Rights of a General Conference 
President," Bishop S. M. Merrill announces and advocates 
principles, which would seem to fall but little short of those 
of Bishop McKendree, and which, if followed to their re- 
sults, must lead to something like the veto law of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South. Bishop Merrill says: 

There are, however, some laws in the Church which the General Confer- 
ence did not make, and which it cannot unmake or modify. When these 
are involved, what is the duty of the Bishop? The rule which inhibits him 
as president of the law-making body from deciding questions of law can- 
not apply where a proposed action appears to him to be an infringement of 
the constitution. Is he powerless to arrest such proposed action? Must he 
become a party to a violation of the fundamental law? Has he no right to 
interpose his own judgment, so far, at least, as to stay proceedings till the 
question of constitutionality is decided? Suppose he is not the final author- 
ity in determining the question, may he not demand a formal investigation 
and decision before he is required to submit the matter to a vote in the 

"Paine's McKendree, II. 44, 45. 



The Third Delegated General Conference, 1820. 359 



General Conference? .... How else can the proper distinction be 
made between the action of a Bishop in determining the constitutionality of 
a proposed measure and determining a point of order under the rules? In 
the latter case the General Conference is supreme. Its dictum is final. In 
the former case it exercises a power given to it tacitly and by usage, or 
taken in the absence of any contrary provision — a power which may be in- 
voked to touch things most vital in Methodism, and which should never be 
exercised except in the most formal and deliberate manner. It is the high- 
est judicial power with which the body is invested, if indeed it be invested 
with such power at all, which it is not except by implication. It decides ap- 
peals from the decision of the chair on questions of order by a majority 
vote, without debate. Is it seemly that it should, or will it claim the right to, 
pass upon the gravest constitutional problems in the same way? . . . Suppose 
a motion is made which plainly contravenes a restrictive rule. In the hurry 
or excitement of the hour the members of the body do not catch the bear- 
ing of the motion in that respect, and no point of order is raised. Must the 
president entertain the motion, knowing it to be unlawful? He would be 
derelict of duty if he saw that it was in conflict with the rules of order and 
did not promptly refuse to entertain it. Must he be less watchful in guard- 
ing the constitution than in upholding the rules of order? Is his power 
complete in the less important case, and utterly wanting in the more impor- 
tant? But suppose he does not rule the motion out on constitutional 
grounds, but simply hesitates, and calls the attention of the General Confer- 
ence to his conviction, and waits for the motion to be withdrawn; is not this 
debating the subject, and throwing the weight of his influence on one side 
as against the other, and has he any more right to debate than he has to rule ? 
Turn the matter over and look at it on every side, and each additional view 
will strengthen the conviction that a motion to do an unlawful thing is nev- 
er in order in the General Conference, and that the president, who is bound 
to maintain the rules of order, is also bound, by the nature of his office as a 
Bishop in the Church, to protect the constitution from infraction by refus- 
ing to entertain a motion that he believes to be unlawful under that instru- 
ment. His obligation in this regard is as high as his obligation to preside 
and enforce the rules of order* 

It would be wrong to attribute to Bishop Merrill any sen- 
timents which he does not distinctly avow, but it hardly re- 
quires reading between the lines, to see that he has very 
grave doubts about the power of the General Conference to 
pass finally upon the constitutionality of its own acts, if not 
a reasoned conviction that it has no such prerogative. He 
describes it as " a power given to it tacitly and by usage;" 
as "taken in the absence of any contrary provision;" as 
" the highest judicial power with which the body is invested, 

*'Art. in New York Christian Advocate, (supplement) March 24, 1892. 



360 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



if indeed it be invested with such power at all, which it is 
not except by implication." Here is a clear and robust le- 
gal intellect, which surely in 1820 and 1824 must have plant- 
ed itself on the ground occupied by McKendree and Soule. 
Must a bishop " become a party to a violation of the funda- 
mental law?" asks Bishop Merrill, and answers his own 
question: " The president, who is bound to maintain the 
rules of order, is also bound, by the nature of his office as a 
Bishop in the Church, to protect the constitution from in- 
fraction by refusing to entertain a motion that he believes to 
be unlawful under that instrument." Rather than "become 
a party to a violation of the fundamental law," as he believed 
the act of the General Conference to be, Joshua Soule, in 
1820, after election, and the refusal of his resignation, de- 
clined to be ordained a bishop. " While I am firmly bound, 
by virtue of my office, to see that all the rules are properly 
enforced," said William McKendree, " I am equally bound 
to prevent the imposition of that which is not properly rule." 
Bishop McKendree and Bishop Merrill are one in the prin- 
ciple they adopt, but differ in the degree of its application. 
Bishop Merrill believes it to be the duty of a General Con- 
ference President to arrest legislation judged to be unconsti- 
tutional and to appeal formally to the Judiciary Committee 
as now constituted in the General Conference of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church. But the Committee can possess no 
power which does not inhere in the body which institutes it, 
and we already know Bishop Merrill's opinion of the pow- 
ers of the General Conference in this regard. Bishop Mc- 
Kendree, in the light of the origin of the General Confer- 
ence and its Constitution, and sustained by express precedent 
in Bishop Asbury's time, believed it to be the duty of a Su- 
perintendent to carry his appeal to the tribunal of the An- 
nual Conferences. 

But if it be the duty of the Bishop who happens to be in 
the chair on a given day of the General Conference session 
to arrest temporarily any measure which he believes to be 
unconstitutional, how much more is it the duty of the whole 



The Third Delegated General Conference, 1820. 361 



College of Bishops, or a majority of them, to signify to the 
General Conference their objections to pending legislation 
which they are convinced is an infringement of the Constitu- 
tion? And, if it be allowed that the General Conference is 
not the proper tribunal to pass finally upon such a protest of 
the Bishops, to what tribunal can it go for decision, save 
that of the Annual Conferences? Thus the constitutional 
provision of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, on 
this point, is seen to be the legal, logical, and necessary re- 
sult of the mutual relations of the Delegated General Con- 
ference, the Bishops, and the Annual Conferences. This is 
after all no Episcopal veto power, in the proper sense, but a 
simple and natural arrangement by which the executive offi- 
cers of the Church may take the sense of the Annual Con- 
ferences on an alleged unconstitutional exercise of powers 
by their agent, the Delegated General Conference. 

Thus, in the General Conference of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South, the Bishops are present to guard the 
constitution against infraction in any concrete instance of 
specific legislation. The principle of the procedure by which 
a delegated body of limited powers is assumed to be com- 
petent in any final way to fix the limits and meaning of a grant 
of power made to it by others — in this case the body of travel- 
ing preachers — is dangerous, anomalous, and, in civil affairs, 
without precedent. This power of definition and interpreta- 
tion belongs alone to the Annual Conferences which, in a very 
vital sense, created the General Conference to act as their 
agent, with instructions. If any doubt arises as to the pur- 
port of these instructions, the principal, not the agent, must 
decide their meaning. Moreover, among other purposes, 
constitutions are constructed for the protection of minorities. 
But, if a majority of the General Conference may both de- 
fine and interpret the constitution, then are not only the ab- 
sent body of elders, but also the minority of representatives 
present, helpless. Much less could the principle be admit- 
ted that one General Conference, of equal powers, and of 
presumably equal intelligence, could sit in judgment upon 



362 The Delegated General Conferences. 



the constitutionality of the acts of a preceding General Con- 
ference; for in that case, since each constitutional decision 
could be opened afresh every four years, certainty and final- 
ity would never be reached. 

All these dangers and evils are avoided by the constitu- 
tional provision inserted in the Discipline of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, by the joint authority of the Gen- 
eral and Annual Conferences. When the General Confer- 
ence of 1808 adjourned, it left in existence the body of trav- 
eling preachers, distributed in the several Annual Confer- 
ences; the Bishops, constitutionally protected in the enjoy- 
ment of all the powers they had hitherto exercised 6 i accord- 
ing to the plan of our itinerant general superintendency ; " 
and the plan for a Delegated General Conference, ordained 
by the body of traveling preachers in General Conference 
assembled, as a charter or constitution for their agent, the 
Delegated General Conference. These three things, the 
first Delegated General Conference of 181 2 found in exist- 
ence when it assembled. The Bishops, being a distinct 
branch of the government, coeval with the existence of the 
Church, antedating the Delegated General Conference and 
its constitution by a quarter of a century, and in that con- 
stitution protected by a restrictive rule emanating from the 
body of elders and giving permanency and independence to 
their office as it existed from the beginning, are the natural 
and only efficient guardians of the rights of the Annual Con- 
ferences against General Conference encroachment. 

If it be objected that this power lodged in the bishops is 
unwise or unsafe, the reply is: (1) this provision is the le- 
gitimate if not the necessary development of the earliest 
principles manifest in the working of our Church govern- 
ment, and corresponds with the best analogies of civil gov- 
ernment, which separates legislative and judicial functions ; 
(2) while our state and national Constitutions usually lodge 
a veto power in one man, the chief executive, this provision 
lodges it in a body of picked men larger than the Supreme 
Court of the United States; (3) while our state and national 



The Third Delegated General Conference^ 1820. 363 



executives can use the veto power on any grounds satisfac- 
tory to themselves, the bishops can veto only upon the sole 
ground of constitutional invalidity; (4) since the General 
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, is 
composed of equal numbers of ministers and laymen, who 
may vote separately upon a proper call, this veto power, 
which gives the bishops to this extent participation in legis- 
lation, makes it necessary for a proposed enactment whose 
constitutionality is open to question to be subjected to the 
rigid scrutiny of three distinct houses, to say nothing of the 
final tribunal of the Annual Conferences, and (5) this provis- 
ion is, strictly, not an absolute episcopal veto power, but a 
proper arrangement for carrying an appeal to the court of 
last resort, the tribunal of the Annual Conferences. 



CHAPTER XXI. 



THE QUADRENNIUM, 182O-1824: THE CONTRASTED GOVERN- 
MENTS OF THE TWO EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



BISHOP McKendree continued firm in his purpose to lay 
his address on the constitutionality of the suspended 
resolutions before the Annual Conferences. He justified his 
course in part by the following precedent: 

The Bishops formed the Genesee Conference in 1809, In the Virginia 
Conference there was an objection to this act, being, as it was supposed, un- 
constitutional. The Bishops [Asburj and McKendree] submitted the ques- 
tion to the Annual Conferences. They acted upon it as a proper subject of 
their decision, and confirmed the act of the Bishops. By this act, the Bish- 
ops and the Annual Conferences tacitly declared the Annual Conferences 
to be the proper judges of constitutional questions; and the senior Bishop is 
fully persuaded that, conformably to the genius of our government, all 
such cases as cannot be otherwise adjusted ought to be submitted to their 
decision until otherwise provided for by the same authority on which the 
present General Conference depends for its .existence* 

The General Conference of 1812 approved the adminis- 
tration of the Bishops in approving the legality of the or- 
ganization of the Genesee Conference, for which the previ- 
ous General Conference had not provided. Of his motives 
and intentions in preparing and submitting the address to the 
Annual Conferences, Bishop McKendree has left a simple 
statement: 

I am fully persuaded that confidence, peace, and harmony among the 
preachers and people, and the perpetuity of our itinerant system now in suc- 
cessful operation, very much depend upon the confidence reposed in the 
delegated General Conference as to their intention to preserve the constitu- 
tion inviolate, and regard it as their rule of conduct. My opposition to the 
"peace-measure resolutions," as they were called, arose from a conviction 
that they were a violation of the constitution, and contravened a principle 
destructive of the "limitations and restrictions" imposed on the delegated 
Conference; and as these restrictions were imposed by the traveling preach- 
ers collectively, and from whom the delegated body derived its being and 
all its powers, I considered them the proper judges of the constitutionality 



*McKendree's Journal, cited bv Paine, I. 426. 

(364) 



The ^uadrennium, 1820-1824.. 



365 



of their acts. Influenced by these views, and a hope of adjusting our diffi- 
culties and harmonizing the traveling preachers, an address to the Annual 
Conferences was drawn up, in which I gave my reasons for believing the 
suspended resolutions to be unconstitutional; intending, if a majority of the 
Annual Conferences were of a different opinion, to submit to their judg- 
ment as a legal decision, and upon that authority admit, recommend, and 
act according to the provisions of those resolutions; but in the event that 
my opinion should be confirmed, to advise the Conferences to recommend 
their adoption by the ensuing General Conference, and thereby introduce 
them conformably to the constitution * 

Nevertheless Mr. Soule entertained fears as to the results 
of the course adopted by Bishop McKendree, and expressed 
his views to the Senior Bishop. His letter lies before me, 
and as it has not heretofore been published, I shall here in- 
sert it. It is dated " New York, 6 May, 1821." After ac- 
knowledging the receipt of letters from the Bishop, and ex- 
plaining his delay, Mr. Soule continues: 

On proposing and recommending to the Annual Conferences the adop- 
tion of the suspended resolutions of the General Conference, I have my 
doubts and fears. I am decidedly of your opinion that, although the resolu- 
tions are no improvement of our system, but rather tend to enfeeble its en- 
ergies, yet, if no further encroachments are made upon the executive authority, 
the government may be administered, under the provisions of those resolu- 
tions. And if I had any sufficient security, that the adoption of those resolu- 
tions, in constitutional order, would be the means of reconciliation, and lay the 
foundation for a permanent peace, I would cordially recommend them for 
such adoption. But it is impossible for me to conceive that those brethren 
who, for so many years, have contested the radical principles of the govern- 
ment, will rest satisfied while the essential features of Episcopacy remain. 
And I am fully persuaded, that one change will be urged as a ground, plead 
as a precedent, and used as an auxiliary, to promote another. If the course 
which you propose is pursued, it follows that each Conference must act, in 
recommending the adoption of the resolutions, upon the ground that they 
are unconstitutional. I think it is a fair presumption that some of the Con- 
ferences will not act on this ground. But my principal fears are the effect 
which the measure may have on the membership. The measures of the last 
General Conference have given many of our people great alarm. From the 
time the Constitution was formed, in which the character of the government 
was fixed, and the rights of the members, private and official, secured, all 
seem to have settled down in peace and quietude and confidence. It seemed 
like the return of a calm after a storm; and general joy prevailed under the 
conviction that we had arrived to that permanent state of things in which 
all might rest. No alteration of the government was expected or desired, 
nor did an apprehension prevail that any new burdens would be imposed, or 



*McKendree's Journal, cited by Paine, I. 439, 440. 



366 The Delegated General Conferences. 



terms of communion established. Under these assurances, what must have 
been the surprise when the proceedings of the General Conference were 
made public? A transfer of important and long established prerogatives 
from one official department to another, and even doubts suggested as to the 
validity of the Constitution itself! From this view of the subject, I am fully 
convinced that the resolutions can never go into operation with safety to the 
peace of the Church on any other ground but that which you propose ; and, 
all things considered, I am inclined to think that your course is the best and 
safest which can be pursued. If I do not see you in New York, I will avail 
myself of the earliest opportunity, after our Conference, to communicate 
more fully on the subject.* 

Accordingly "To the Annual Conferences of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, commencing with the Ohio Confer- 
ence, to be held in Lebanon, September 6, 1821," the senior 
Bishop took his appeal. After a brief, but pertinent, histor- 
ical introduction, he states his constitutional objections in 
three propositions: 

1. It would effectually transfer the executive authority from the Bishops 
to the Annual Conferences, and thereby do away that form of Episcopacy 
and itinerant General Superintendency which is recognized in our Form of 
Discipline, and confirmed in the third Article of the Constitution. 

2. By doing away the present effective General Superintendency, our itin- 
erant plan of preaching the gospel would be greatly injured, if not entirely 
destroyed. 

3. In point of law, it would effectually divest the members of our Church 
of all constitutional security for their rights, and reduce them to the neces- 
sity of depending entirely on the wisdom and goodness of the General Con- 
ference for those inestimable blessings. 

A summary of Bishop McKendree's argument on the first 
head has been previously presented. f On the second point 
he says in part: 

Could all our traveling preachers attend one Annual Conference, to ac- 
count for their administration, and receive their appointments and instruc- 
tions, the itinerant plan might go on and prosper in America as it does in 
England, without either General Conference or General Superintendency. 
But our situation is widely different from theirs. Our work extends over 
more than twenty States, and has to encounter difficulties arising from the 
civil regulations of different State and Territorial governments. We are di- 
vided into twelve Annual Conferences. These are all equal in power, and 
independent of each other, no one having power to impose laws on another. 

"-'•Extract from original letter in the author's possession. The replv to Mr. Soule's letter, 
as well as the one to which it was a reply, may be seen in Paine's McKendree, II. 372-376. 
The italics in this and preceding letters of Mr. Soule's are his own. 

fSee above, pp. 343, 344. 



The J^uadrennium, 1820-1824.. 



367 



The jurisdiction of each Annual Conference is restricted to its own bounds, 
and each Presiding Elder to his own District. Out of this state of things 
arises the necessity of a General Conference to make rules or laws for the 
united Annual Conferences, and of a General Superintendency to enforce 
those rules ; to preserve a uniform administration of discipline ; to preserve 
the union of the several Annual Conferences; and by removing preachers 
from District to District, and from Conference to Conference, (which no 
Annual Conference nor Presiding Elder can do,) perpetuate and extend mis- 
sionary labors for the benefit of increasing thousands, who look unto us as 
teachers sent of God. Such is our situation in this country that our itiner- 
ant system can no more do without an effective General Superintendency, 
sufficiently under the control of the General Conference, than they can with- 
out the General Conference itself. It [the General Superintendency] was, 
therefore, ratified by the constitution, after twenty-four years' experience in 
proof of its utility and necessity. 

Under the third proposition, is included this argument: 

For it requires no more power to change our articles of religion, erect 
new standards of doctrine, and do away the rights of preachers and mem- 
bers, than to do away our General Superintendency ; and, if the delegated 
General Conference is not bound by these restrictions, then their power is 
undefined and unlimited — they may make what changes they please, and 
there can be no legal redress — no constitutional guarantee for our rights and 
privileges. Your Superintendent most cordially disapproves of such a state 
of things, and will do nothing which he believes will produce it, because he 
conceives it would go to deprive both preachers and members of constitution- 
al security, and reduce them to the necessity of relying solely on the Gener- 
al Conference for all their rights and privileges. . . . Since that memo- 
rable era [1808] in Methodism, your Superintendent conceives the General 
Conference to be bound as sacredly to observe all those restrictions, (as the 
laws by which their proceedings are to be tested,) as each member of the 
Church is bound to submit to the examination of his conduct, according to the 
legitimate rules enacted by said Conference, because the restrictions arise 
from the same source, and are supported by the same authority, which gave 
existence to the delegated General Conference, and validity to their rules 
and regulations ; consequently, they must both stand or fall together. 

This notable address, one of the most important docu- 
ments of our Constitutional history, concludes with this 
language : 

From the preachers collectively both the General Conference and General 
Superintendents derive their powers; and to the Annual Conferences, joint- 
ly, is reserved the power of recommending a change in our constitution. 
To you, therefore, your Superintendent not only submits the case, but he 
would advise you to adopt such measures as you in your judgment may 
deem most prudent, by which to recognize the adoption of the change pro- 
posed in the resolutions, conformably to the provision in the sixth Article of 



368 The Delegated General Conferences. 



the Constitution. Not that he believes the change would be an improve- 
ment of our system of government, or that it would fully answer the expec- 
tations of its advocates, but as an accommodating measure, on the utility of 
which men equally wise and good may, in some degree, differ in opinion. 
Your Superintendent is, therefore, disposed to submit his opinion for the 
harmony of the body, as far as is consistent with his duty and obligations to 
the Church. And, as a majority of more than two-thirds of the last Gener- 
al Conference, after having received assurances that it would be satisfactory, 
and put the controverted subject to rest, voted in favor of the resolutions, 
they tacitly say, all things considered, the change is at least prudentially 
necessary. To this decision all due deference is paid. In the opinion of 
your Superintendent, no sacrifice for peace and harmony, which can be 
made consistently with the constitution and preservation of our general itin- 
erant plan of preaching the gospel, is too great. With your recommenda- 
tions and instructions, your representatives in General Conference may act 
as they may judge most for the glory of God and the good of his Church. 
Thus introduced, the case would commend and establish the constitution, 
and form an effectual barrier against any future infringement of that bul- 
wark of our rights and liberties * 

Of the twelve Annual Conferences into which the Church 
was then divided, seven " judged the suspended resolutions 
unconstitutional " and yet " authorized the ensuing General 
Conference, as far as they could do so, to adopt them with- 
out alteration." This statement of Bishop McKendree's is 
sufficiently exact: six of the Conferences which pronounced 
the resolutions unconstitutional, nevertheless recommended 
their adoption; the seventh, the South Carolina, while de- 
clining to recommend, did not pronounce against their adop- 
tion. "But the five other Conferences," continues the 
Bishop, 46 in which the steady friends and most powerfnl 
advocates of the proposed change were found, refused to 
act on the address, and thereby prevented its adoption \i. e. y 
the adoption of the recommendation for the proposed change, 
which required the assent of all the Conferences] in a con- 
stitutional way, and, of course, set in for another vigorous 
contest at the next General Conference. In this way my 
hope of a safe and peaceable adjustment of our difficulties, 
and the prevention of a dangerous, probable schism in the 
Church was frustrated, and the way for the spread of the 
schism already commenced was made more easy." 

*The entire address is given in Paine's McKendree, I. 444-458. 



The Jguadrennium, 1820-1824.. 369 



The seven Conferences which pronounced the proposed 
change unconstitutional, but, on the recommendation of 
Bishop McKendree, interposed no barrier, if made in a con- 
stitutional way, were the southern and western bodies, name- 
ly, the Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, 
South Carolina, and Virginia Conferences. The five Con- 
ferences which, in effect, refused to accept their own meas- 
ure as a constitutional change, were the New England, New 
York, Genesee, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. They declined 
to acknowledge the powerlessness of the General Confer- 
ence to act alone in the premises, and tacitly avowed their 
determination to accept the change, if at all, only on their 
own terms, despite the constitutional scruples of the Senior 
Bishop and a majority of the Conferences. Thus the issue 
was joined on the naked constitutional principle alone. 
Heavy and bitter attacks were delivered upon Bishop Mc- 
Kendree — that " he would not submit to the authority of the 
General Conference," etc. He had been willing, however, 
though he regarded the measure as impolitic, unconstitution- 
al, and revolutionary, to recommend its adoption, provided 
that adoption was reached in a constitutional way. He did 
this (1) to harmonize the episcopacy, (2) to save the consti- 
tution, and secure a fresh committal to the inviolability of 
that instrument, and (3) to pacify the sadly divided Church. 
Bishop Roberts admitted the " infringement of the constitu- 
tion," but was willing for the measure to go into effect as an 
act of the General Conference. Bishop George, while with- 
holding his opinion on the constitutional point, evidently de- 
sired the adoption of the change. " To secure harmony in 
the episcopacy, maintain the authority of the constitution, 
and, by yielding his preference as to the mode of admin- 
istering the polity of the Church, obtain a fresh indorse- 
ment of the Constitution, and thus restore peace without the 
sacrifice of a vital principle," concludes McKendree's biogra- 
pher, " were certainly his objects." In the collection of un- 
published papers, described in the preface of this work, I find 
an official transcript from the Journal of the Philadelphia Con- 
24 



370 The Delegated General Conferences. 

ference, made by the Secretary " for Bishop McKendree," 
and endorsed in the Bishop's handwriting, " Resolutions 
of the Philadelphia Conference on the Address." As it hap- 
pens that the action of the South Carolina Conference is also 
among these unpublished documents, I shall insert the two 
as instructive examples of the radically opposed views of the 
Northeastern and Southwestern Conferences on this ques- 
tion. The Philadelphia action was as follows: 

Ezekiel Cooper moved and Joseph Osborne seconded, the following res- 
olutions: 

Whereas Bishop McKendree, in his communication to this Conference 
has pronounced that the resolutions of the last General Conference relative 
to the election of presiding elders, are, in his belief, an infringement on the 
constitution of the Methodist Episcopal Church, wherefore 

Resolved, I. That in the opinion and full conviction of this Conference, 
there is nothing in the said resolutions that makes any infringement on the 
constitution or restrictive regulations of our Church. Carried unanimously. 

Resolved, [2.] That the restrictive resolutions do not in our opinion pro- 
hibit or restrict any changes, alterations or new modifications of the episco- 
pal powers or duties, provided such changes do not do away episcopacy or de- 
stroy the plan of our itinerant general superintendency. Carried unanimously. 

True copy from the Journal. L. Lawrenson, Secretary. 

May 16, 1822.* 

Thus Ezekiel Cooper, the champion of a diocesan episco- 
pacy and of an elective presiding eldership in 1808, whose 
proposed restrictive rule on this subject was at the time re- 
jected for Joshua Soule's, carried the Philadelphia Confer- 
ence unanimously in 1822 for the constitutionality of an 
elective presiding eldership. 

Lewis Myers, writing to Joshua Soule, from Charleston, 
March 7, 1822, says: 

The last General Conference's two resolutions are taking the rounds. 
Bishop M. has delivered us his address on the subject. We have acted on it. 
The identical words, verbatim, I cannot rehearse. The substance is as follows : 

Resolved, 1. That in our judgment the two resolutions relative to Presid- 
ing elders, etc., passed at the last General Conference and suspended to the 
next, are contrary to the constitution of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
established by the General Conference of 1808. 

2. That this Conference views with sentiments of gratitude, the firm and 
prudent stand which our Senior Bishop made to maintain inviolate the said 
constitution. 



*Original document in possession of the author. 



The J^jiadrennium , 1820-1824., 371 



3. That much ought to be yielded for the sake of peace; but our minds 
are not yet prepared to decide on this all-important point. 

4. That Bishop M. be respectfully requested to grant a copy of his address 
to be entered into our Journals. 

"The second and third," continues Mr. Myers, "ap- 
peared seriously to affect our good old Bishop George's 
mind. He appeared depressed. He met several of us and 
proposed that we should make some alterations, so as to rec- 
ommend such a change in the constitution as would embrace 
the resolutions: we remained as we were. I could wish he 
had left us with a more satisfied mind. As to the first reso- 
lution, as far as I can judge, the minds of the Conference 
are united." * 

Thus, nearly a quarter of a century before the division of 
the Church, the Northeast and Southwest were solidly and 
determinedly arrayed against each other on a question purely 
constitutional, affecting the principles of ecclesiastical gov- 
ernment alone. That sectional differences, particularly the 
contrast between the civil institutions of the northern and 
southern portions of the Union, afterwards largely entered, 
directly and indirectly, into the estrangement of the two 
wings of Episcopal Methodism, must be allowed, as a matter 
of course, by any one enjoying a tolerable acquaintance with 
the principles of human nature and the events recorded on 
the broad page of history. But this fact must not blind us 
to an antecedent difference, which radically divided the 
northern and southern sections of the Church on the nature 
of our ecclesiastical government, and particularly on the 
powers which the Delegated General Conference was enti- 
tled to exercise under the constitution which had been given 
to it. In our Church, as in our nation, the division was 
along the line of strict construction of the powers delegated 
by the constitution, on the one hand, and a loose and broad 
interpretation of those powers, on the other. These differ- 

* Original letter in possession of the author. The action of the Kentucky 
and Ohio Conferences, which, though pronouncing them unconstitutional, 
recommend the adoption of the resolutions, may be seen in Paine's McKen- 
dree, II. 332. 



372 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



ences in the Church, instead of fading away with the lapse 
of time, have been accentuated at critical junctures, before, 
at, and since the division of Episcopal Methodism, until dis- 
tinct and opposed conceptions of our Church government, 
particularly of the powers and relations of the General 
Conference, the Annual Conferences, and the Episcopacy, 
have been crystallized in the Methodist Episcopal Church 
and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. That the 
organic union of these congenetic Churches is a consum- 
mation devoutly to be wished for, is an abstract propo- 
sition, which it would be equally devoid of practical result to 
support or to oppose, and which, as lying beyond the prov- 
ince of these pages, we may be pardoned for passing without 
raising. A union — not absorption — on terms equally hon- 
orable and satisfactory to both (if there is any reasonable 
hope that the Churches can satisfy the conditions of this 
easily recited but hitherto imaginary formula) is, it may be 
allowed, an adjourned question, which neither party should 
hastily or peremptorily close. Certainly we have no desire 
to prejudice its decision here. But it would be folly to shut 
our eyes to these historic, fundamental differences of three 
quarters of a century's standing, and attempt to bring the 
severed parts by external pressure into a mechanical and su- 
perficial union. Bishop Asbury exercised the episcopal 
office for thirty two years — twenty four before the adoption 
of the constitution, and eight under its operation. His con- 
ception of the important organic functions of his office, and 
of its unique position in the government of Methodism, is 
sufficiently obvious from the preceding pages. Bishop Mc- 
Kendree was chosen a bishop by the General Conference 
which created the delegated body and ordained its constitu- 
tion. During the eight closing years of Asbury's episcopate 
and life, the two Bishops, alone in the discharge of their 
high duties, were inseparable in their official characters and 
functions, and most intimate in their personal associations. 
They attended the Conferences in company, and, when the 
constitutionality of their episcopal administration in the crea- 



The J^iiadrennium) 1820-1824. 



373 



tion of the Genesee Conference was challenged in the Vir- 
ginia Conference, Asbury took his appeal to the Annual 
Conferences which, like the General Conference which fol- 
lowed, approved the administration of the Bishops. That 
McKendree, in these long tours, became, in no servile but 
yet in a very vital sense, the depositary and custodian of the 
primitive Asburyan views and practices, there can be no 
doubt. Joshua Soule was an itinerant preacher for seven- 
teen years under the administration of Asbury. The whole 
of his itinerant life, with the exception of two years in Bal- 
timore, just before he accepted the episcopal office, was 
passed in the New England and New York Conferences. 
He thus had no sectional affiliations with the Southern wing 
of the Church. He was the author of the Constitution of 
the Church, acquainted with every detail of its history from 
its inception to its adoption. In 1820, after a double elec- 
tion — for the refusal to accept his resignation was equivalent 
to a second election, and that by an increased majority — he 
refused, under circumstances most creditable to himself, to 
be ordained to the high office of a Bishop in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. In 1824, with no change or concealment 
of his views, and after a quadrennium of (at that time) un- 
paralleled excitement in the history of the Church, during 
which time his sympathy and cooperation with the Senior 
Bishop, in the heroic remedies which he sought to administer 
to the body ecclesiastic, were universally known, he was the 
first man elected to the episcopal office by a General Con- 
ference which had been chosen with express reference to the 
decision of the controversies that were then rending the 
Church. This was high endorsement, but no higher than 
such a man deserved. The same General Conference 
passed a measure, which, as we have seen, settled, so far as 
that body could, the method by which constitutional issues 
might be appealed to the tribunal of the Annual Confer- 
ences, in accordance with the views and practice of Bishop 
McKendree. Twenty years roll by. McKendree and 
George and Roberts have joined the celestial ranks. Soule 



374 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



is the Senior Bishop of a yet undivided but irreconcilably 
discordant Episcopal Methodism. By his side stand Hed- 
ding and Andrew and Waugh and Morris — good men and 
true, all of them, whom the Church honored in their lives, 
and whom devout men carried to their burial with great lam- 
entation. If Emory and Fisk had been there, another re- 
sult might possibly have been reached. But an All- wise 
Providence did not so permit. There is again a sharp con- 
flict between the Episcopacy and the General Conference, 
before which that of 1820 pales into insignificance. Into its 
merits and changing phases it would be premature to enter 
at this stage of our history. Nor is it necessary. The tall 
New England Senior is found standing where he stood a 
quarter of a century before — once more, and on an intens- 
er issue, against his own New England people. His place 
of residence was not in the Southland; and the difference 
between the civil institutions of the North and the South was 
not the primary issue in his mind. Doubtless on that ques- 
tion he was one with his colleague, Bishop Hedding, both 
of them, in their administration, having taken the same stand. 
But he planted himself, as aforetime, on the Constitution. 
A gentleman of keen intellect and unblemished Christian 
character, whose subsequent official career, though brief, 
was highly useful and honorable, arose in his seat one Mon- 
day morning to address the General Conference. He had 
been reared among influences foreign to Methodism, and, 
though finally adopting the law as a profession, had, in earlier 
life, intended entering the ministry in the Congregational 
Church, and, indeed, though at times suffering from tempo- 
rary mental aberration, had begun to preach in Congrega- 
tional and Presbyterian pulpits. He had been a Methodist 
about sixteen years, and it had been less than twelve years 
since his admission on trial, at the age of thirty five, into an 
Annual Conference.* In polished periods, he had some- 
what to say about mandamus proceedings, a tortious seizin, 
the episcopacy as an ' 6 abstraction " and a " gallery of disa- 

*Hibbard's Hamline, pp. 16, 17, 20, 21, 43, 54. 



The J^uddrennium, 1820-1824.. 



375 



bilities," and finally advanced, " as a mere logical formula," 
(to use his own words) an ingenious and novel theory of the 
government of the Methodist Episcopal Church — the cele- 
brated " Croton River" view of the universal supremacy of 
the General Conference, legislative, judicial, and executive. 
"If it err, which is not a legal presumption," said Mr. 
Hamline, " its unwholesome error is incurable, except by the 
vis medicatrix — the medicinal virtue — of its own judicial en- 
ergies." It was such a speech as for originality, analytical 
power, and literary finish, the General Conference had not 
heard for many a day. It made its author a Bishop, for the 
majority had at last found a man w r ho had laid a platform 
broad enough for them to stand upon. We have said the 
theory was novel: the Senior Bishop declared to the General 
Conference he had never before heard its doctrines so much 
as hinted.* It would be difficult to find a trace of them in 
the literature of the Church before 1844. But the Confer- 
ence not only adopted them, but proceeded at once to act 
upon them, and Mr. Hamline' s views have since become ca- 
nonical in the Methodist Episcopal Church. The constitu- 
tional party — for such the minority were, whatever else they 
may have been — withdrew. A separate and distinct Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church was organized. As the law book 
of this Church, the existing Discipline of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church was adopted, without the change of a 
doctrine or provision, constitutional or statutory. t Bishop 

* Bishop Soule said: " I wish to say explicitly that if the Superintendents 
are only to be regarded as the officers of the General Conference, liable to 
be deposed at will by a simple majority of this body without a form of trial, 
no obligation existing, growing out of the constitution and laws of the 
Church, even to assign cause wherefore — everything I have to say hereafter 
is powerless and falls to the ground. But, strange as it may seem, although 
I have had the privilege to be a member of the General Conference of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church ever since its present organization; though I 
was honored with a seat in the convention of ministers which organized it, 
I have heard for the first time, either on the floor of this Conference, in an 
Annual Conference, or through the whole of the private membership of the 
Church, this doctrine advanced; this is the first time I ever heard it." 

tSaid Annual Conferences, " are hereby constituted a separate ecclesi- 
astical connexion," "based upon the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal 



376 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



Soule, the last Senior Bishop of the undivided Methodist 
Episcopal Church, became the first Senior Bishop of the 
Church thus established, abandoning his section and his ex- 
alted station, alienating many old friends and making many 
new enemies, to cast in his lot, amid much obloquy, with 
the new and untried organization, which had naught to com- 
mend it to the first officer of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
save its adherence to the constitutional principles which he 
had always embraced and championed. This man's life is 
all of a piece — in 1808, in 1820, in 1844. That he should 
have taken this course, under these circumstances, is a vin- 
dication of the claim of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, that, back of all sectional differences, however dis- 
ruptive and uncontrollable, lay this constitutional difference. 
It was as marked when seven Southern Conferences took 
their stand in 182 1-2 by the side of McKendree and Soule, 
and five Northern Conferences ranged themselves over 
against them, as it was at any later period. To-day, the 
Constitution framed by Joshua Soule, with his interpreta- 
tion of it, is still the corner-stone of the government of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

Since the separation, each Church has moved along its 
own chosen course. The Bishops of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church are commonly said to be " officers of the Gen- 
eral Conference " and no more. The General Conference 
is both the primary and final judge of the constitutionality of 
its own acts. One of the Bishops ably and conclusively ar- 
gues in an official journal, his right to refuse to put a mo- 
tion which, in his judgment, is an infraction of the constitu- 
tion; but, if he should reduce his principles to practice, it 
is not doubtful that he would be rather severely handled by 
the General Conference. Should the General Conference 
at any time, however innocently, exceed its constitutional 
powers, the Annual Conferences have no protection and no 

Church," and "comprehending the doctrines and entire moral, ecclesi- 
astical, and economical rules and regulations of said Discipline, except only 
in so far as verbal alterations may be necessary to a distinct organization." 
— Action of Louisville Convention. 



The Jihiadrenniiim, 1820-1824.. 



377 



redress; the Bishops can only submit or resign ; the Church 
itself, should the guaranteed rights of the membership be 
invaded, has no remedy save that of revolution. There is 
no power but of — the General Conference. If a proposed 
amendment fails of the constitutional majority in the Annual 
Conferences, the General Conference may and does return 
the same proposition in reversed statement, so as to require 
the constitutional majority in order to maintain the govern- 
ment as it is.* Should a Bishop decline to submit, or an An- 
nual Conference refuse to vote, upon this new statement of 
a proposition already constitutionally rejected, it is difficult 
to see why either would not be guilty of contumacy and a 
disorderly rejection of the General Conference supremacy. 
The Bishops, in formal communications to the General Con- 
ferences, ask that body to decide questions of law or to in- 
terpret the language of the Discipline. Their communica- 
tion is referred to the Judiciary Committee, and when the 
General Conference acts on their report, the decision is fi- 
nal, and the Bishops govern themselves accordingly. Thus 
the functions of a legislature and a supreme court are com- 
bined in the same body. An appeal from the decision of the 
President of an Annual Conference on a point of law, 
likewise, lies to the ensuing General Conference. The 
" Croton River" conception of the government has been 
universally accepted, and its principles are applied without 
question. 

On the other hand, in the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, the constitutional origin and protection of the episco- 
pacy is accepted as a maxim. The College of Bishops is 
the supreme court of appeals in legal decisions. An appeal 
from the decision of a President of an Annual Conference 
on a law point lies to the whole College of Bishops, whose 
decision is final. Their interpretation of the law is authori- 
tative, and governs the administration until the General Con^ 

*See Report No. II. of the Committee on Judiciary, the Moore substitute, 
and the Hamilton amendment, on the seating of women in the General Con- 
ference. Gen. Conf. Journals, XII. 1892, pp. 358, 359, 486. 



37^ The Delegated General Conferences. 



ference changes the statute.* Moreover the Bishops are con- 
stitutionally the primary judges of the constitutionality of the 
acts of the General Conference. Their functions as the law- 
officers of the Church are never suspended, during the session 
of the General Conference, which creates no judiciary com- 
mittee, or at any other time. Not that they possess a " veto 
power " in the proper sense, but that they are empowered to 
carry the appeal to the tribunal of the Annual Conferences, 
that the Bishops, the Annual Conferences, and the Church 
itself, may be protected from that most dangerous of all tyr- 
annies — the tyranny of an oligarchy, which proclaims its 
own supremacy and irresponsibility — whose errors, even 
though they be undesigned and unconscious, are not the less 
dangerous, and are incurable by any independent or consti- 
tutional or coordinate agency. 

The merits of these two contrasted systems of government 
in Episcopal Methodism, it does not become us to argue in 
these pages. If we have inadvertently fallen into the small- 
est error as to matter of fact in the preceding statements, no 
one could be more grateful for a prompt correction. Thus 
the differences which date back to 1820 have been crystal- 
lized in two Churches, which, bearing the same generic name, 
and to the superficial observer having the same episcopal 
government, are as widely separated as the poles. Accord- 
ing to the precedents and genius of the government of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, with its broad construction of 
the constitution, and its universally supreme General Con- 
ference, there is no reason why this body should not, by a 
majority vote, alter the tenure of the episcopal office from life 
to a term of years; confine the administration of a Bishop 

* "An Annual Conference shall have the right to appeal from such decis- 
ion to the College of Bishops, whose decision in such cases shall be final. 
. . . And each Bishop shall report in writing to the Episcopal College, at 
an annual meeting to be held by them, such decisions as he has made subse- 
quently to the last preceding meeting; and all such decisions, when approved 
by the College of Bishops, shall be recorded in a permanent form, and pub- 
lished in such manner as the Bishops shall agree to adopt, and when so ap- 
proved, recorded, and published, they shall be authoritative interpretations 
or constructions of the law."— Discipline, 1890. 



The JQuadrennium, 1820-1824.. 



379 



by law to a given episcopal district; or enervate the episco- 
pacy by a refusal to elect additional Bishops as their ranks 
are thinned by death.* Similarly the presiding eldership 
might, by a majority vote, be essentially modified or abolished. 
If any of these measures were determined upon, it might be 
that the conservatives could prevail upon their advocates to 
consent to effect them by the constitutional process; but this 
would be an abandonment of the principles generally accept- 
ed by the Church since they were first set forth by Mr. 
Hamline, and the Annual Conferences would speak purely 
by the concession and grace of the General Conference. If 
the General Conference in its supreme judicial capacity 
should decide against the submission of any of these meas- 
ures, or others like them, to the Annual Conferences, and 
should pass any of them simply by a majority vote, the 
Bishops, the Annual Conferences, and the Church would 
all be alike helpless, unless they resorted to the inalienable 
right of revolution. On the other hand, in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, if any of these changes become 
desirable, there would be no question that they must be ef- 
fected by the constitutional process. The episcopal office 
might be held by a quadrennial tenure, or the presiding eld- 
ership become elective or cease to exist; but such changes 
could not be effected by a majority vote of the General Con- 
ference. Hence waiving, as before, or conceding, if the 
reader choose, the abstract question of the desirability of the 

*In his celebrated speech, Mr. Hamline said; "Our Church constitution 
recognizes the Epicopacy as an abstraction, and leaves this body to work it 
into a concrete form in any hundred or more ways we may be able to in- 
vent. We may make one, five, or twenty bishops; and if we please, one for 
each Conference. We may refuse to elect another until all die or resign; 
and then, to maintain the Episcopacy, which we are bound to do, we must elect 
one, at least. As to his term, we may limit it at pleasure, or leave it unde- 
termined. But in this case is it undeterminable ? Certainhy not. The power 
which elected may then displace. In all civil constitutions, as far as I know, 
not to fix an officer's term, is to suspend it on the will of the appointing power. 
Cabinet ministers and secretaries are examples. No officer as such can 
claim incumbency for life, unless such a term be authoritatively and express- 
ly fixed upon." 



3 8o 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



reunion, on broad Christian principles, of the two Methodist 
Episcopal Churches, there confronts us the problem, of 
whose easy solution only one ignorant of the history of the 
Church could be sanguine, of a formal, explicit, and mu- 
tually satisfactory adjustment and reconciliation of the fun- 
damentally opposed schemes of government in the two 
Churches. 

Between the General Conferences of 1820 and 1824, 
Bishop McKendree's health was infirm and his trials great; 
but, says he, 

I pursued my course as well as I could until the fall preceding the Gen- 
eral Conference of 1824, when, observing the method adopted by some, and 
thinking that I could not attend the Annual Conferences without interfer- 
ing with their measures, or at least seeming to interfere in the election of 
delegates to the ensuing General Conference, which I deemed derogatory 
to my station, therefore, notwithstanding the fate of our controversy de- 
pended on the representatives to be chosen at the three following Confer- 
ences, I committed the cause to God, and went no farther than the Tennessee 
Conference. Great were the efforts to secure a majority in favor of the sus- 
pended resolutions, but they proved unsuccessful. 



CHAPTER XXII. 



THE FOURTH AND FIFTH DELEGATED GENERAL CONFER- 
ENCES, AND THE INTERVENING QUADRENNIUM, 
1824-1828. 

THE Fourth Delegated General Conference met in Balti- 
more, Saturday, May 1, 1824, with the three bishops 
and about one hundred and twenty five delegates present at 
the opening. Memorials poured in declaring that " the peo- 
ple were the source of legislative authority;" that " the pow- 
er of the Bishops was to be found nowhere else but in 
popes; 5 ' that 44 we have no constitution;" that 44 the re- 
strictive parts of the Discipline are not binding on succeed- 
ing General Conferences after 1808;" nor " upon the laity, 
as they were made by a legislative body, without the design 
or authority to adopt a constitution," etc.* 

The question on the suspended resolutions was introduced 
by Peter Cartwright, who gave notice, May 19, that the next 
day he would offer the following: 

Whereas the resolutions which were suspended at the last General Con- 
ference are null and void, inasmuch as a majority of the Annual Confer- 
ences have judged them unconstitutional, and whereas six of the Annual 
Conferences have recommended their adoption ; therefore 

Resolved, etc., That said resolutions go into effect as soon as their adoption 
shall be recommended by those Annual Conferences which have not recom- 
mended them, they being approved by two thirds of the present General 
Conference. 

Mr. Cartwright represented the Kentucky Conference, 
which had both pronounced the suspended resolutions un- 
constitutional and recommended their constitutional adop- 
tion by the consent of all the Conferences. His preamble 
recites the facts correctly: seven Conferences, including 
South Carolina, had pronounced them unconstitutional; but 



*Paine's McKendree, II. 33. 



(381) 



382 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



the South Carolina had refused to recommend their adop- 
tion, as we have seen from original evidence, leaving but six 
which had taken the positive action recommended by Bish- 
op McKendree for the sake of peace. 

Bishop McKendree' s address submitted two questions: 
(i) Are the suspended resolutions constitutional? (2) If 
unconstitutional, shall they be adopted in a constitutional 
way, by the suspension of the restrictive rule? Mr. Cart- 
wright's resolution formally recognizes the principle, which 
seems to have been universally admitted at the time, that a 
majority of the Conferences, acting in a judicial capacity, 
might determine the question of constitutionality, for or 
against. If a majority decided the resolutions to be consti- 
tutional, that ended the controversy, adversely to Bishop 
McKendree and the constitutionalists, and the resolutions 
were to go into effect. But, if the majority decided them to 
be unconstitutional, there was still the constitutional method 
of making them effective, namely, by the recommendation 
of all the Annual Conferences, required for the alteration or 
suspension of the restrictive rule. If we are mistaken in the 
statement that the principle was generally accepted that a 
majority of the Conferences might decide the primary ques- 
tion of constitutionality, it is true that Bishop McKendree, 
at least, assumed and acted upon it, and that Mr. Cart- 
wright, a member of the constitutional party, by formally 
embodying it in his resolution, sought to commit the Gen- 
eral Conference to this view by its own express action. 
As the measure which the General Conference finally passed 
contained an equally clear and express statement of the prin- 
ciple, the General Conference of 1824 placed the formal 
stamp of its official approval upon the course which Bishop 
McKendree had pursued, and recognized the binding, legal 
force of the decision which he had procured from the Annu- 
al Conferences. Mr. Cartwright designed, however, to give 
the Northern Conferences one more opportunity to secure 
the adoption of their favorite measure in a constitutional way. 

The next day Mr. Cartwright failed to call up his measure ; 



The Fourth and Fifth, 1824.-1828. 



383 



but, May 21, David Young, of the Ohio Conference, gave 
notice that he would offer a resolution on the " suspended 
resolutions." In the afternoon, the withdrawal of a resolu- 
tion of Mr. Cartwright's is recorded: it appears to have 
been the one cited above. The constitutionalists were gain- 
ing confidence and were rather forcing the fighting. Mr. 
Cartwright's measure had been thrown out to develop the 
position and strength of the opposing parties. The result 
proving satisfactory to those who had introduced it, it was 
probably understood privately that Mr. Young's measure, 
which was stronger, should substitute Mr. Cartwright's. 
Accordingly, May 22, Mr. Young submitted the following: 

Whereas a majority of the Annual Conferences have judged the resolu- 
tions making presiding elders elective, and which were passed and then sus- 
pended at the last General Conference, unconstitutional; therefore 

Resolved, etc., That the said resolutions are not of authority and shall not 
be carried into effect. 

The delay, after the introduction of Mr. Cartwright's res- 
olution, had probably enabled the constitutionalists to satisfy 
themselves of one or both of two things, (1) that a fresh ref- 
erence to the Annual Conferences would only increase the 
agitation, with no prospect that the Northern Conferences 
would accept the measure on a constitutional basis, and (2) 
that the constitutional party was strong enough to pass the 
decisive measure of Mr. Young in the General Conference. 
Mr. Young's resolution had the great advantage of joining 
the issue on the constitutional question, pure and simple, 
without reference to the merits of the presiding elder contro- 
versy. Accordingly Monday morning, May 24, his measure 
was called up ; a motion to lay it on the table was defeated ; 
the Journals of the last General Conference, and of the 
Ohio, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Missouri, Phila- 
delphia, New York, and South Carolina Conferences, were 
read, so far as they bore on this subject; and, in the after- 
noon, the vote being taken by ballot, Mr. Young's resolu- 
tion was sustained, and the constitutionalists triumphed by 
the narrow margin of 63 to 61.* 



*Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 270, 276, 277, 278, 281. 



384 The Delegated General Conferences. 



By this action the General Conference formally recog- 
nized the validity and finality of a decision of the majority of 
the Annual Conferences against the constitutionality of the 
suspended resolutions, since the decision was recited in the 
preamble of Mr. Young's measure as the sole and sufficient 
ground of the declaration that the suspended resolutions 
44 are not of authority " and 44 shall not be carried into ef- 
fect." The Senior Bishop had prosecuted to a successful 
issue his appeal from the action of a General Conference to 
the tribunal of the Annual Conferences ; and the Delegated 
General Conference, acting under a constitution, formally 
recognized the supremacy of the primary bodies which had 
called it into existence. 

But the constitutionalists triumphed — always by a narrow 
majority — all along the line. By a vote of 64 to 58, as we 
have seen in a preceding chapter, they sent to the Annual 
Conferences for adoption the constitutional amendment, pro- 
viding for an episcopal veto power and, in a defined contin- 
gency, for an appeal to the Annual Conferences.* A ma- 
jority, no doubt, favored this plan, but that it was defeated 
need not excite surprise, as the constitution then required the 
consent of all the Annual Conferences to such a change. 
The lines were closely drawn in the episcopal election. 
Two bishops were to be elected, and Joshua Soule and Wil- 
liam Beauchamp were the representatives of the constitution- 
alists, and Elijah Hedding and John Emory of their oppo- 
nents. On the first ballot the constitutional 44 candidates " 
— the word is freely employed by contemporaries — led the 
poll, Soule having 64, Beauchamp 62, Hedding 61, and Em- 
ory 59; but, 128 ballots having been cast, there was no elec- 
tion. On the second ballot, Mr. Soule received 65 votes 
and was elected, no other receiving a majority. But before 
the third ballot was taken, Mr. Emory arose and withdrew 
his name. This is commonly regarded as the modest 
act of the youngest man whose name was before the Con- 
ference. Undoubtedly it was such an act, and Mr. Emory 



*See above, pp. 354~357- 



The Fourth and Fifth, 1824.— 1828. 



385 



could well afford to wait. But it was more than this. The 
fathers were not quite so innocent in such matters as is usu- 
ally supposed. There was now no possibility of the election 
of more than one of the candidates of the anti-constitution- 
alists, and the younger man withdrew in favor of the senior 
and leading name. Moreover, but one name was to go on 
the ballots this third time, since Mr. Soule had been elected, 
and if Messrs. Hedding and Emory divided the votes of their 
party, it was almost certain to elect Mr. Beaucharnp. Conse- 
quently Mr. Emory withdrew, and on the third ballot Mr. 
Hedding received 66 votes to Mr. Beauchamp's 60, and was 
elected.* There was an element of danger in the fact that 
each Bishop had been chosen by a sectional and party vote ; 
but it was well for the unity of the Church, divided on a 
constitutional issue, but by a sectional line, that each party 
secured a Bishop. No fracture took place but, if a severe 
strain should come, the plane of cleavage was painfully evi- 
dent. 

Mr. Young's measure made a final disposition of the sus- 
pended resolutions. Nevertheless, it was agreed, on motion 
of Robert Paine and William Capers, both of whom were 
elected Bishops at the first General Conference of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South, that 

It is the sense of this General Conference that the suspended resolutions, 
making the presiding elder elective, etc., are considered as unfinished busi- 
ness, and are neither to be inserted in the revised form of the Discipline, nor 
to be carried into operation, before the next General Conference."!" 

So high did the tide of party feeling run that twice, while 
this resolution was pending, Bishop Roberts in the chair, the 

*Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 285. 

•\ Ibid., I. 297. Bishop McKendree takes this view of the intention of this 
resolution. He saj^s: "On the commencement of the late General Confer- 
ence [1824], the Bishops took the subject into consideration, and unanimous- 
ly agreed to recommend the introduction of the suspended resolutions so 
soon as they should be recommended by those Annual Conferences which 
had not already authorized the change. This the old side — the majority — 
I understand, are willing to do. But this our reformers refused to do. The 
majority, still desirous of an amicable adjustment of differences, would not 
destroy the resolutions, but perpetuated their suspension. This is my view 

25 



386 The Delegated General Conferences. 



quorum was broken, and only under the remonstrances of 
the chairman and the venerable Freeborn Garrettson was it 
restored, and the measure finally passed.* 

We have seen how it was the custom first of Coke and 
Asbury, then of Asbury and Whatcoat, and finally of As- 
bury and McKendree, to attend all the Conferences in com- 
pany whenever practicable. The new arrangement in 1816, 
when George and Roberts were added to the espiscopal col- 
lege, has also been noticed. f When the General Confer- 
ence of 1824 adjourned, there were seventeen Annual Con- 
ferences and five Bishops, four of whom were effective. It 
was necessary that the plan of episcopal supervision should 
be somewhat further developed and, to meet the new situa- 
tion, which to the fathers seemed a little complex, the Com- 
mittee on Episcopacy recommended, and the Conference 
passed, the following: 

Resolved, &c, 4. That it is highly expedient for the general superintend- 
ents, at every session of the General Conference, and as far as to them may 
appear practicable, in the intervals of the sessions, annually, to meet in coun- 
cil to form their plan of traveling through their charge, whether in a circuit 
after each other or by dividing the connexion into several episcopal depart- 
ments, with one bishop or more in each department, as to them may appear 
proper and most conducive to the general good, and the better to enable 
them fully to perform the great work of their administration in the general 
superintendency, and to exchange and unite their views upon all affairs con- 
nected with the general interests of the Church.J 

This, so far as appears, was the origin of the " Bishops' 
Meeting." It was now both impossible and unnecessary 
for all the Bishops to be present at every Conference. The 
form of the General Conference action, it will be noticed, 
is advisory only; and leaves to the discretion of the Bishops 

of the matter. Hence the change in our government, which was dictated 
by the reformers is defeated by the reformers. It is said by authority to be 
relied upon, that nothing short of investing the Annual Conferences with 
authority to constitute the presiding elders, independently of the Bishops, 
and to make the presiding elders thus appointed a committee to station 
the preachers, in which the Bishop shall have only the casting vote, will sat- 
isfy the Northern brethren." 

* Paine's McKendree, II. 40. 

t See above, pp. 335, 336. 

J Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 301, 302. 



The Fourth and Fifth, 1824.-1828. 



387 



the plan of Episcopal visitation. Under the Constitution of 
the Church, a Methodist Bishop remains in the enjoyment 
of all his Episcopal powers at all times and in every part of 
the Church. His administration cannot be constitutionally 
restrained, either as to time or place, by any statute of the 
General Conference. Any such limitation arises from the 
comity of his agreements with his colleagues, in the admin- 
istration of a joint, itinerant, general, superintendency. In 
the present complex administration, certain violations of this 
comity might and would result in disaster ; but any proper 
episcopal act of any Bishop at any time, in any part of the 
Church, would be valid. Violations of this comity would be 
primarily canvassed in the College of Bishops, not in the 
General Conference. If the difference could not be set- 
tled there, the final resort would be to the General Confer- 
ence, to which the Bishops are jointly responsible for the 
whole administration. In a conceivable state of affairs, a 
constitutional measure might become necessary for the per- 
manent settlement of such issues. In the General Confer- 
ence of 1824, it was contended by some that the body had 
authority to divide the Church into episcopal districts for the 
quadrennium; but Winans triumphantly vindicated the con- 
stitutional view, in a speech which Bishop Paine, who heard 
it, describes as ''thrilling;" and the report of the commit- 
tee was adopted as recited above. Accordingly, the Bish- 
ops agreed among themselves that Roberts and Soule were 
to attend the western and southern Conferences, and 
George and Hedding the eastern and northern. The Sen- 
ior Bishop sometimes attended more Conferences in a year 
than either of his colleagues, as he traveled throughout the 
Church. For mar_y years following it was not unusual for 
two Bishops, and frequently three, to be present at the ses- 
sions of the Annual Conferences. 

The legislation in 1824 on the subject of slavery is em- 
braced in the following paragraphs inserted in the Discipline : 

3. All our preachers shall prudently enforce upon our members the neces- 
sity of teaching their slaves to read the word of God ; and to allow them 



388 The Delegated General Conferences. 



time to attend upon the public worship of God on our regular dajs of di- 
vine service. 

4. Our colored preachers and official members shall have all the privi- 
leges which are usual to others in the district and quarterly conferences, 
where the usages of the country do not forbid it. And the presiding eld- 
er may hold for them a separate district conference, where the number of 
colored local preachers will justify it. 

5. The annual conferences may employ colored preachers to travel and 
preach where their services are judged necessary; provided that no one 
shall be so employed without having been recommended according to the 
Form of Discipline.* 

The quadrennium from 1824 to 1828 was the era of radi- 
calism. The discussion of the " rights " of the itinerants in 
the election of presiding elders, had aroused the local 
preachers to an assertion of their "rights" in the govern- 
ment of the Church. The laity in turn took up the agita- 
tion for "rights," in the election of class-leaders and in 
making changes in the economy of the Church. All the 
discontented found a vehicle of communication in a vigor- 
ous organ, "The Mutual Rights" Baltimore was the cen- 
ter of the maelstrom, and here a convention of the reform- 
ers was held in 1827. Large demands were made upon the 
General Conference of 1828. 

But by this time the conservative elements had rallied against the de- 
structive rush of threatened revolution. Even lay delegation, the last plank 
and the most popular one in the new platform, couid not then be considered 
with the favor which it received at a later day. The temper on both sides, 
in the greatly widened controversy, was unfavorable to concession. The 
reformers were aggressive and hopeful, for several reasons. They believed 
their cause just; it was favored by the political tendency of the country; an 
envious element of sectarianism which once existed in other denominations, 
and was ever ready to humble Methodism, was forward and loud to encour- 
age disaffection ; but chiefly they miscalculated as to the final adhesion of 
men who had, at one time or other, expressed views in sympathy with their 
own. Even Bascom uttered some sentiments, in the heyday of his blood, 
which were not in harmony with his maturer life as one of the strongest, 
steadiest, and most trusted leaders of Episcopal Methodism the Church has 
ever had. Hedding leaned that way once,"j" on the original question, and 
Bangs and Waugh. Emory criticised and antagonized Bishop McKendree 
and Joshua Soule for the prompt, resolute means they used to save the con- 
stitution. Bishop George, in judicial weakness, and Bishop Roberts, by 

* Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 294; Emory's Hist, of the Discipline, p. 279. 

fThat Hedding completely reversed his opinion on the presiding elder question, see his life 
by Bishop Clark, pp. 217-220. 



The Fourth and Fifth, 1824.-1828* 



389 



amiable irresolution, in the primary movement let the ship drive. But now, 
when the radical tendencies of these things were seen, the conservatives 
closed ranks and stood firm. The report of the General Conference, made 
by John Emory, was kind, strong, and conclusive, and put an end to the 
hopes of the reformers, who proceeded to the organization of the Methodist 
Protestant Church. . . . Thoughtful men must not be counted on to 
join in a theoretical and destructive reform because every pin and screw in 
the tabernacle that has sheltered them is not exactly to their notion.* 

Before me lies the original copy of what may, not improp- 
erly, be styled the official minutes of the first Bishops' meet- 
ing ever held in the Methodist Episcopal Church. It is in 
the handwriting of Bishop McKendree, who made a small, 
neat, unbound blank book, in which he wrote his notes. 
About this, with the letters which passed between the Bish- 
ops at the time, he placed a paper band, whose ends are 
fastened together with sealing wax, and inscribed the pack- 
et: The official interviews of the Bishops in Philadelphia, 
April, 1826." The General Conference of 1824 had rec- 
ommended, as we have seen, such an annual meeting. Be- 
fore that time, there had never been more than three con- 
temporary Bishops, and their interviews were more or less 
irregular and informal. As they were frequently all pres- 
ent together at Annual Conferences, set times for the trans- 
action of business of a general nature were unnecessary. 
During the two years since the General Conference, Bishops 
George and Hedding had been laboring in the North, and 
Bishops Roberts and Soule in the South. That no meeting 
of this character had been held in 1825 appears certain from 
a letter which Bishop McKendree addressed to Bishop 
George, dated Philadelphia, April 22, 1826, in which he 
says, "Almost two years have elapsed since we saw each 
other." This, therefore, was the first official meeting of 
the Bishops, the main business which called them together 
being to appoint a fraternal delegate to England, according 
to the direction of the General Conference, and to discuss 
the plan of episcopal visitation. Two sessions were held, 
both in Bishop McKendree's room, one on the afternoon of 



* Bishop McTyeire, History of Methodism, pp. 572, 573. 



39° 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



April 13, and the other at six o'clock in the morning of 
April 18 — an hour long since abandoned for such episcopal 
interviews. Bishops George and Hedding were holding the 
Philadelphia Conference, and Bishops McKendree and 
Soule came from the South. Bishop Roberts was absent. 

These memoranda have not hitherto been published: the 
thoughtful reader will see in the sequel how their insertion 
here subserves the ends of this history. Says Bishop Mc- 
Kendree : 

Bishop Soule and myself arrived at Dr. Sargent's, in Philadelphia, in the 
evening of the 12th of April, and waited in expectation of seeing Bp. George, 
who put up within about one square of our lodging. When the morning 
of the 13th was far spent, I addressed a note to Bp. George requesting an in- 
terview as soon as practicable, and proposed to [wait] on him at the place and 
hour which he would appoint. On account of business he deferred it until 
the afternoon and promised to wait on us at my room. Accordingly Bishops 
George and Hedding came. Bp. Soule was present, and our business was 
introduced. 

The appointment of a messenger to the British Conference was proposed. 
Bp. G. thought that appointment was discretionary with the bishops, — that 
we had no business of material consequence, — that the expense would be 
considerable; and, therefore, he was opposed to appointing a man. Bishop 
Soule produced the resolutions of the General Conference,* and a letter 
from the preachers in Canada, proposing instructions to the contemplated 
messenger; they were read. And Wm. Capers, who had been fixed on by 
Roberts and Soule, was nominated by McKendree and objected to by George 
and Hedding, because he was the owner of slaves. George nominated W. 
Fisk or E. Cooper. A little desultory conversation passed. Bp. George 
said his business pushed — he must retire — but take business into considera- 
tion. Bp. McK. then proposed another subject for their consideration, which 
was for the bishops, George and Hedding, to change with Roberts and Soule 
next year, in order for each bishop to visit all the Annual Conferences be- 
fore the next General Conference. 

There were several other subjects of great importance to the Church to 
be discussed, but the bishop was in a great hurry, and they were reserved for 
the next meeting. This interview took up about three quarters of an hour, 
and we parted- 
While sitting in Conference, Monday, 17, a note from Bishop George was 
handed to me by Hedding, proposing an interview at six o'clock next morn- 
ing, if advisable. Bp. Soule consenting to the proposal, the note was imme- 
diately answered in the affirmative: and about the appointed time on the 
18th the bishops came to my room. 

*" Resolved, that the general superintendents be, and are hereby authorized and requested 
to appoint a delegate to the British Conference, to visit them in 1826, under the same regula- 
tions that were adopted in 1820." — Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 294. 



The Fourth and Fifth, 182^.-1828. 



39 1 



The business was introduced by Bp. George. He professed to be pressed 
with business — to be in a great hurry — introduced the subject of appointing 
a delegate to England — supposed Bp. Soule and myself had not altered our 
opinions — that he could not approve of the man of our choice — that he still 
thought we were not obliged to appoint a representative to England at this 
time. The resolution of the General Conference, he said, was advisory. 
There was not business of sufficient importance to make it necessary and 
the expense would be very considerable. He was therefore opposed to the 
appointment of a delegate at this time. After a few remarks on the resolu- 
tion of the General Conference, Bp. Hedding thought the resolution required 
the appointment of a minister to England; but such were his apprehensions 
of consequences from the North if a slave-holder should be appointed, that 
he would join with Bp. George to send no one, and risk the consequences. 
To all of which, Bps. McKendree and Soule made no reply. They said 
nothing for or against either of the persons in nomination ; but let the sub- 
ject drop, in consequence of a determination on the part of the other bish- 
ops to have matters conducted as they pleased — or do nothing. Further 
conversation on this subject ceased of course. 

Bp. George then mentioned the subject of the Bishops changing their 
ground for the next year, and proceeded to show difficulties, impracticability, 
etc. An attempt was made to answer them, and to show the practicability 
and propriety of the measure. But the Bishop pronounced it inadmissible! 
Said he was hurried by a press of business and must go! On this occasion 
the bishops were together about an hour. 

Thus ended our official interviews, on various business of the Church, 
which, bv McKendree, Roberts, and Soule, was judged to be of sufficient 
magnitude to call all the bishops together to consult and arrange their busi- 
ness. Bp. Roberts, whose situation exposed him to the most serious incon- 
veniences, concluded, for the sake of the case, to make the sacrifice, and the 
time was appointed for them to meet in Baltimore, to perform this duty of a 
jointly responsible general superintendency, and labor of love to the Church. 
But, alas! for the accomplishment of the laudable design. 

The relations of Bishops McKendree and George had been 
somewhat strained since 1820. But with this we have noth- 
ing to do here : the good men have long since seen eye to 
eye in their Father's house. The material point is that at 
this early date, the College of Bishops, no less than the 
General Conference, and the Annual Conferences, was di- 
vided, not only on the issue of the appointment of a delegate 
to England, but upon a proper rotation of the Bishops, who, 
as itinerant general superintendents, should have been equally 
known in every part of the Church. Of the two questions 
discussed at the first Bishops' meeting, (1) the appointment 
of the delegate, and (2) the fixing of a general itinerary of 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



the superintendents, the latter was of incomparably greater 
importance to the peace and unity of the Church. As a mat- 
ter of fact, Bishop Hedding in twenty years, from 1824 to 
1844, made but a single tour of the Southern Conferences, 
and that in 1831, seven years after he became a Bishop: in 
the same year Bishop Soule made his first episcopal visita- 
tion in the North! The Bishops were localized. Again 
and again Roberts and Soule advanced as far north as the 
Baltimore Conference and returned again on their southern 
track; again and again George and Hedding came as far 
south as the Philadelphia Conference, and retreated into 
New York, New England, and Canada; many a time since 
have the Bishops of two Episcopal Methodisms carried 
their oversight to the same limits and retired into the North 
or the South! Let us look a little more closely into this. 
The day after the adjournment of the " Bishops' meeting, " 
Bishop McKendree penned this letter: 

Philadelphia, April 19, 1826. 

To Bishops George and Hedding : 

In our interviews in this city, I have advised you and the other Bishops 
to change, in order for each to visit all the Annual Conferences before the 
next General Conference. 

The harmony of the episcopacy and the prosperity of the Church influ- 
ence me to give this advice; but I claim no anthority over my colleagues. 
If, therefore, the change involves insurmountable difficulties, on your part t 
it is your right to decline such a course. But, in either event, it is my 
earnest request, that our next round of Conferences may commence in 
Philadelphia, May 3, 1827, or, if more convenient to you, on the 26th of 
April, and conclude in Ohio, October 11, and proceed as near the following 
dates as the distance from one to another will admit: New York, May 24; 
New England, June 14; Maine, July 5; Genesee, Aug. 2; Canada, Aug. 23; 
Pittsburg, Sept. 21 

The object of this request is to enable me to attend those Conferences 
next year, which I hope to do if health and strength are preserved ; and con- 
formably to the above plan I am persuaded it may be done. 

Most respectfully yours, etc. W. McKendree.* 

The proper supervision of the work is weighing on the 
Senior Bishop's mind. To this epistle, the Bishops addressed 
returned the following reply: 



* Unpublished letter: original in the author's possession. 



The Fourth and Fifth, 182 4.- 1828. 393 

Philadelphia, April 20, 1826. 
To Bishop McKendree: 1 ' 

We have received jours of yesterday, and are of opinion that the plan 
will be impracticable. For, instead of the Philadelphia Conference being 
fixed at a later date, we shall have, by degrees, to bring it earlier, in order 
to have it meet in 1828 before the time of the General Conference, and give 
time to get to Pittsburg. As it respects the other Conferences it is im- 
possible for us to determine at what time they can be held till we know 
where they will be, on account of the distances; but we think the time at 
which you have fixed some of them , would be too short for the distance ; and 
with due respect we would suggest the opinion that in your state of debility 
it would be impossible for you to reach them all. Again the change of 
time, in some of the Conferences, would be so great we fear it would give 
them serious dissatisfaction. The New York Conference, in 1828, will 
probably have to be about the 1st of April; because the superintendents and 
delegates cannot return from Pittsburg till too late in the summer for that 
Conference. 

Respecting a change, so as to enable us to visit all the southern and west- 
ern Conferences before the General Conference, it seems to us to be impossi- 
ble that our health would admit of it. 

With respect to the delegate, though we cannot agree to your nomina- 
tion, nor you to ours, we shall be glad to meet you and Bp. Soule as soon as 
our business will admit of it, and see if we can fix on some other man in 
whom we can all be agreed. Or, if this cannot be done, we would suggest 
the propriety of writing to the British Conference. 

Affectionately yours, etc., Enoch George, 

E. Hedding.* 

Thus, however valid these objections to Bishop McKen- 
dree's proposal may have been in detail, the infirm Senior 
received little encouragement to visit the Northern Confer- 
ences, under the supervision of his junior colleagues; and 
as for the exchange with Roberts and Soule, it was impossi- 
ble that the health of George and Hedding would admit of 
it. It may have been their misfortune, and not their fault, 
but in either case Bishop McKendree' s plan for such an 
episcopal itinerancy as would make the superintendency 
truly general, failed, and great hurt came to the Church 
thereby. A letter of inquiry which the two Bishops ad- 
dressed to the Senior in New York, serves to show that 
their testimony about the " Bishops' meeting" agrees with 
his, and, for that reason, it is presented here: 



* Original letter (unpublished) in author's possession. 



394 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



May 12, 1826. 

To Bishop McKendree, 

Dear Sir: We desire respectfully to inquire if you recollect the following 
particulars in our interviews at Philadelphia on the subject of a delegate for 
England. 

First, That you proposed Brother Capers, we objected on account of his 
holding slaves. Then we proposed Brothers Fisk and Cooper. 

Secondly, But in another conversation, when it was asked in what sense 
the vote of the General Conference was to be understood, E. George stated 
that he did not understand the vote to be imperative; E. Hedding stated that 
he supposed the vote laid the Superintendents under an obligation to send 
one, but that he, for his part, would rather risk the responsibility of sending 
none, than that of sending any brother who held slaves. 

Thirdly, That in our note addressed to you, in answer to one we received 
of you, we proposed another meeting to see if you could nominate some oth- 
er brother in whom we could all agree. 

An answer to these inquiries will much oblige, dear sir, 

Yours affectionately, 

E. Hedding, 
E. George * 

Bishop McKendree's answer may be seen in the pages of 
his biographer. It is a somewhat fuller reproduction of his 
original notes of the Bishops' meeting; but adds that Bish- 
op Soule had returned to Baltimore after the last episcopal 
interview, and that, from the tenor of their note, the Senior 
had expected to be informed when their "business would 
admit " of another meeting, but that he had received no fur- 
ther information on the subject. He concludes, " I judge 
it most prudent for me to decline any further agency in the 
case, not with a design to prevent the appointment, but for 
you to manage the business as you may think best." f 

Our authorities commonly locate this " Bishops' meeting " 
in Baltimore. % From Bishop McKendree's notes it appears 
that this was the place appointed, and that McKendree, 
Roberts, and Soule came together there. Bishop Roberts' 
engagements did not permit him to go to Philadelphia, but 
he concurred in the nomination of Capers, and Bishops Mc- 
Kendree and Soule agreed to go on to Philadelphia, where 
it was known they would fall in with Bishops George and 

*The original is in Bishop Hedding's handwriting. 
■j-Paine's McKendree, II. 387-390. 

J So Clark, Life of Hedding, p. 324; McTyeire, History, p. 575. 



The Fourth and Fifth, 1824.-1828. 



395 



Hedding at the session of the Philadelphia Conference. 
The business of the Annual Conference seems to have taken 
precedence with Bishop George, and the interviews were un- 
satisfactory and void of result. The next year (1827) all the 
Bishops met; four of them retained their opinions of a year 
before ; Bishop Roberts amiably refused to decide the ques- 
tion; and the appointment of a delegate to England went 
over to the General Conference of 1828. 

The biographers, concerned with the doings of single Bish- 
ops only, have generally failed to state accurately the plan of 
episcopal visitation actually pursued, and have apparently not 
apprehended how dangerous it was to the unity of the 
Church. Thus Bishop Paine declares that at the close of 
the General Conference of 1824, it was agreed that " for the 
first two years Bishops Roberts and Soule were to attend the 
Western and Southern Conferences, and Bishops George 
and Hedding the Eastern and Northern, and to exchange 
their fields of labor for the ensuing two years — thus en- 
abling each of them to attend every Conference before the 
next General Conference." * Well had it been for the fu- 
ture of Methodism had such an exchange taken place, and 
had such exchanges become the permanent policy of the 
Bishops. We have seen how earnestly and persistently the 
Senior Bishop strove to effect it, foreseeing the evils which 
must afflict the Church from such a sectionalizing of the 
Bishops. These evils began to appear at Philadelphia, in 
the hopeless division of the Bishops over the appointment of 
a delegate. Roberts and Soule, apparently, acquiesced in 
the plan of McKendree ; at least there is no evidence of op- 
position on their part, while George and Hedding pointedly 
declined to concur. In a private letter to Bishop McKen- 
dree, written at New York, May 18, 1826, Bishop George 
thus construes the action of the General Conference of 1824 
with regard to the visitation of the Bishops : 

As to visiting all the Conferences and becoming jointly responsible, it is 
to me a new thought; I did believe that the General Conference gave liber- 
ty to the Episcopacy to make such arrangements as would meet the increase 



* Life and Times of McKendree, II. 48. 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



of labor without its becoming insupportable. I am sincere when I say that 
I did think such arrangements were made at the time the Episcopal commit- 
tee met at Baltimore, and that they were made for four years; and being 
thus impressed at the time, I made all arrangements to meet that plan. . . . 
And I do sincerely think that I have neither strength of body or mind, at 
present, to undertake a continental superintendency.* 

Thus Bishop George regarded the resolution of the Epis- 
copal committee, adopted in 1824 by the General Conference, 
as decisive, and had not so much as contemplated any other 
work for the quadrennium than the northern circuit of Con- 
ferences: the new conditions, in his judgment, necessitated 
a localized episcopacy, a quasi diocese, and he decided to 
act accordingly. 

Bishop Clark says of the division of episcopal labor in 
1824 that it " was agreed upon for the year : Bishops Rob- 
erts and Soule were to take the supervision of the Baltimore 
and Kentucky Conferences, and all the Conferences south 
and southwest of them; while Bishops George and Hedding 
were to take the Philadelphia and Pittsburg Conferences, 
and all the Conferences north and northeast of them."f 
What a division of the work, when it became practically 
permanent! With the exception of a single year, when 
Bishop Hedding took the southern circuit, as we have seen, 
it became altogether permanent, so far as the subject of Dr. 
Clark's biography is concerned; yet year after year he re- 
cords the treadmill round of his hero — Philadelphia, New 
York, New England, Genesee, (until 1828, Canada,) Pitts- 
burg, Ohio, with small variations, as new Conferences were 
created in these regions — without detecting any thing re- 
markable in this sectionalizing of a Methodist Bishop, or 
noting its bearings on the future of the Church 4 

After attending the Baltimore and Philadelphia Confer- 
ences, Bishop McKendree took the southern circuit with 
Roberts and Soule in the autumn of 1824, attending the Ken- 

* Original letter in possession of the author. 
•j*Life and Times of Hedding, p. 306. 

J I have carefully traced all of Bishop Hedding's tours in Dr. Clark's biog- 
raphy, pp. 305-586, and the above is a sufficiently accurate generalization of 
the facts 



The Fourth and Fifth, 1824.-1828. 



397 



tucky, Missouri, and Tennessee Conferences. At last the su- 
perannuated senior, weighed down by increasing infirmities, 
is compelled to relinquish work, in a letter, written at Nash- 
ville, Dec. 12, 1824, and addressed to Bishops Roberts and 
Soule. But in 1825 he is at it again, attending the Ken- 
tucky Conference with Bishop Roberts, September 22; 
thence he crosses the Cumberland and Alleghany mountains, 
and attends a quarterly meeting at Lynchburg, Va., with 
Hezekiah G. Leigh; from there he goes to the Baltimore, 
Philadelphia, and Genesee Conferences; comes back to the 
Baltimore and Philadelphia Conferences * in the spring of 
1826, and attempts to impress upon the other Bishops his 
views of a "continental superintendency," illustrated by such 
an example ! In the winter and spring of 1826-7, he attends 
the South Carolina, Virginia, Baltimore, and Philadelphia 
Conferences. In May he returns westward, visiting for the 
third time his beloved Wyandotte missions in Ohio, and 
again reaching the session of the Kentucky Conference at 
Versailles, in October, 1827. In March, 1828, he sets out 
for the General Conference at Pittsburg. Thus throughout 
the quadrennium, 1824-1828, the irrepressible and indefati- 
gable Senior, presumably superannuated, was the only epis- 
copal link binding together the North and the South: the 
health of George and Hedding did not admit of their coming 
south, and Roberts and Soule could not exchange without 
their consent. It was bad enough that the General Confer- 
ence and the Annual Conferences should be split into two 
nearly equal parts on a constitutional issue and by a sectional 
line; it had its dangers that Soule and Hedding should have 
been put into office by opposed sectional votes ; it was too bad 
that the episcopacy could not harmonize in their first formal 
conference; it was perhaps worst of all, in its effects on the 

* Bishop Paine adds the New York (II. 82); but in this he is probably mis- 
taken. Bishop McKendree wrote Bishop George in the spring of 1826 that 
he had not seen him for two years. George and Hedding presided alternate- 
ly at the New York Conference; but Hedding was alone at Philadelphia 
and Genesee, except as Bishop McKendree aided him. See Clark's Hed- 
ding, pp. 320-322. 



398 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



mind of the Church, that the effective Bishops should have 
been permanently sectionalized in their superintendency. 
Perhaps better things were designed at the General Confer- 
ence of 1828. The report of the Committee on Episcopacy, 
adopted by the Conference, recommended that " each of 
our bishops should, if practicable, be known in each of the 
Annual Conferences once in four years. ' ' But Bishop George 
died in the autumn of that year, on his way south to hold the 
Holston Conference. As late as 1831, when Hedding took 
the southern circuit for the first and only time, Soule first 
appeared in his native New England in his episcopal charac- 
ter. By common consent, each section was entitled to a 
bishop in 1832, and Andrew and Emory were chosen by 
handsome majorities on the first ballot. This indicated a 
spirit of mutual conciliation; but at the same time it perpet- 
uated the sectional balance and division. But to this election 
little importance is to be attached. The work of division was 
accomplished in the years 1820-1828. During that period it 
came to pass, perhaps before many of the active participants 
were awake to it, that the line of division, constitutional 
and sectional, had been run through the Church, separa- 
ting it, in all but name, into two sharply contrasted Episcopal 
Methodisms. He who hangs his theory of the division of 
the Church upon the slender thread of the accidents of an 
episcopal matrimonial alliance, or even upon the difference 
of civil institutions, North and South, alone, may satisfy him- 
self. But his proceeding is unhistorical. The preceding 
pages have been written to little purpose, if the conviction 
is not forced upon the mind of the impartial reader, that in 
this troublous period of 1820-1828 the work of division was 
really accomplished. The line, like a thread of scarlet, ran 
clearly and discernibly through the General Conference. It 
ran, openly and undisguisedly, through the Annual Con- 
ferences. It ran with decent concealment, but no less 
certainly and fatally, through the College of Bishops, and 
was intensified, if not rendered indelible, by their sectional 
administration. The line ran through the Church, and it 



The Fourth and Fifth, 1824.— 1828 '. 



399 



was only an accident of time, when the strain should come 
which should cause the already severed sections visibly to fall 
apart. 

Bishop McKendree did all he could to make the superin- 
tendency general. In his person it was general, notwithstand- 
ing his knowledge of his own unpopularity in the Northern 
Conferences. Neither this, nor the discouragement of his 
episcopal colleagues at the North, could deter the venerable 
man, tottering under the weight of seventy years,* from the 
exercise of the general superintendency prescribed by the 
constitution of the Church. Upon his colleagues he sought 
to enforce the same; but in this he failed. No doubt Bish- 
ops George and Hedding were sincere — entirely so — in their 
expressed objection to the appointment of Dr. Capers, as 
the fraternal delegate to England. But the embarrassments 
— the ecclesiastical politics, if the phrase be admissible — of 
years were behind it all. Hedding had never itinerated in 
the South, and knew nothing of the pedestal of preeminence 
upon which Capers stood by universal acclaim. He knew 
that Capers belonged to the constitutional party; he knew 
how he voted in 1824. Soule's relations to Fisk might be 
described in similar terms. What more natural than that the 
sectionalized episcopacy — Roberts and Soule on the one 
hand, and George and Hedding on the other — should have 
fastened on these eminent men, in their respective sections 
of the Church, for this honorable and responsible post? 
The issue once joined could not be settled. 

The Fifth Delegated General Conference met for the 
first time west of the Alleghanies, at Pittsburg, Penn., May 
1, 1828. Bishops McKendree, George, Roberts, Soule, 
and Hedding were all present: the Senior Bishop opened 
the session, as he had done in every case since the death of 
Asbury. It was composed of 177 delegates elect, of whom 
125 were present at the opening session. f In the episcopal 

*He was seventy in the summer of 1827, and lived to be seventy-eight. 
■j-Paine's McKendree, II. 106. The Journal (I. 342, 343) if I have count- 
ed correctly, gives 176 delegates elect. Clark's figures are approximate. 



400 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



address, the Bishops regretted their failure to appoint a del- 
egate to England, and, without stating the cause or the 
names which had been canvassed, all of which, it would ap- 
pear from the election which followed, was sufficiently well 
known, they suggested that the General Conference should 
elect such a fraternal messenger. Accordingly an election 
was held for this purpose. On the first ballot William Ca- 
pers had 75 and Wilbur Fisk, 67 ; but scattering votes de- 
feated a choice. On the second ballot there were 138 votes, 
making 80 necessary to a choice ; Fisk had 72 and Capers 82, 
and was elected. He discharged the duties of his mission 
with distinguished success.* 

The presiding elder controversy which had so long and 
so dangerously agitated the Church was finally disposed of 
in the following manner: 

John Early moved, and it was seconded, that the report of the Committee 
on Revisal and Unfinished Business, in relation to the suspended resolutions 
and the election of presiding elders, be taken up and considered. The mo- 
tion prevailed. 

William Winans moved, William Capers seconded, that the subject of 
the report be disposed of bj adopting the following resolution, as a substi- 
tute for the resolution which was laid over as unfinished business, viz.: — 

Resolved, etc., That the resolutions commonly called the suspended reso- 
lutions, rendering the presiding elders elective, etc., and which were re- 
ferred to this conference by the last General Conference as unfinished busi- 
ness, and reported to us at this conference, be, and the same are hereby re- 
scinded and made void. Carried.^ 

Nevertheless on the next day, D. Ostrander and T. Mer- 
ritt bravely brought forward the old measure; but it was 
promptly tabled, apparently without debate. J 

At this General Conference the first formal amendment of 
the Constitution by the process prescribed in the Constitu- 
tion itself, was initiated. On the afternoon of May 15, Wil- 
bur Fisk submitted the following: 

Resolved, etc., i. That this General Conference respectfully suggest to 
the several annual conferences the propriety of recommending to the next 
General Conference so to alter and amend the rules of our Discipline, by 
which the General Conference is restricted and limited in its legislative 
powers, commonly called the Restrictive Rules, number six, as to read 



;: Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 339. f Ibid., I. 332. % Ibid., I. 335. 



The Fourth and Fifth, 1824.- 1828. 



401 



thus: Provided, nevertheless, that upon the joint recommendation of three- 
fourths of all the annual conferences, then a majority of two-thirds of the 
General Conference succeeding shall suffice to alter any of the above re- 
strictions; or whenever such alterations shall have been first recommended 
by two-thirds of the General Conference, then, so soon as three-fourths of 
said annual conferences shall have concurred with such recommendations, 
such alteration or alterations shall take effect. 

Resolved, etc., 2. That it is hereby made the duty of the several bishops 
in their tours to the different annual conferences, to carry around and lay 
before any such annual conference which they may visit respectively any 
address or resolution, or other papers of a decent character, which this Gen- 
eral Conference or any annual conference may request them so to carry 
around to obtain the opinion or decision of said annual conferences thereon. 
Signed, Wilbur Fisk, Joseph A. Merrill * 

May 21, Fisk's resolutions were called up on motion of 
William Winans. A division of the matter was called for, 
and the first resolution was adopted, with some alterations 
which had probably been made by the original movers, 
with consent, to obviate objections that had come to their 
knowledge while the measure was awaiting action. It now 
read as follows: 

That this General Conference respectfully suggest to the several An- 
nual Conferences the propriety of recommending to the next General Con- 
ference so to alter and amend the rules of our Discipline, by which the Gener- 
al Conference is restricted and limited in its powers to make rules and reg- 
ulations for our Church, commonly called the Restrictive Rules, as to 
make the proviso at the close of said Restrictive Rules, No. 6, read thus: 
Provided, nevertheless, that upon the joint recommendations of three- 
fourths of all the Annual Conferences, then a majority of two-thirds of the 
General Conference succeeding shall suffice to alter any of the above re- 
strictions except the first "Article." 

This is an improvement in some particulars: for Fisk's 
phrase "legislative powers," the practically synonymous 
language of the Constitution, < ' powers to make rules and 
regulations for our Church," is substituted; the capital ex- 
ception of the first restrictive rule, which protects the stand- 
ards of doctrine, is added; but Fisk's provision for the in- 
itiation of constitutional changes in the General as well as in 
the Annual Conferences is omitted. The General Confer- 
ence of 1828, though really initiating such a change, care- 



26 



*Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 331, 332. 



402 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



fully respected, in the phraseology of its action, the exclu- 
sive constitutional prerogative of the Annual Conferences: 
"This General Conference respectfully suggests to the sev- 
eral Annual Conferences the propriety of recommending to 
the next General Conference," etc. There was evidently 
dissatisfaction with the shape into which the measure had 
gotten ; the vote by which it had been adopted was recon- 
sidered, and it was referred to a select committee of three, 
of which Fisk was chairman.* May 22, Fisk made his re- 
port and it was adopted as follows: 

Resolved, That this General Conference respectfully suggest to the sev- 
eral Annual Conferences the propriety of recommending to the next Gen- 
eral Conference so to alter and amend the rules of our Discipline, by which 
the General Conference is restricted in its powers to make rules and regu- 
lations for the Church, commonly called the Restrictive Rules, as to make 
the proviso at the close of said Restrictive Rules, No. 6, read thus: 

Provided, nevertheless, that upon the concurrent recommendation of 
three-fourths of all the members of the several Annual Conferences who 
shall be present and vote on such recommendation, then a majority of two- 
thirds of the General Conference succeeding shall suffice to alter any of 
such regulations, excepting the first article. 

And, also, whenever such alteration or alterations shall have first been 
recommended by two-thirds of the General Conference, so soon as three- 
fourths of the members of the Annual Conferences shall have concurred, as 
aforesaid, with such recommendation, such alteration or alterations shall 
take effect.* 

This final form well illustrates how an important measure 
may be perfected by passing without haste through the sev- 
eral stages to which a deliberative assembly may subject it: 
(i) the first restrictive rule, which protects the doctrines 
of the Church, is excepted from the operation of the new 
method of constitutional amendment; (2) Fisk's original 
provision for initiation of constitutional changes in the Gen- 
eral Conference is restored; and, most important of all, (3) 
the language 44 three fourths of all the Annual Confer- 
ences " is altered to 44 three fourths of all the members of 
the several Annual Conferences who shall be present and 
vote." The original provision in the Constitution of 1808 
put it in the power of a single small Annual Conference to 



*Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 346. \Ibid., I. 553, 354. 



The Fourth and Fifth, 1824.-1828. 403 

defeat the will of the remainder of the Church; and Fisk's 
original proposition put it in the power of any group of An- 
nual Conferences, greater than one fourth of the whole 
number, however small and however feeble their minority, 
to defeat a constitutional change. This feature of the Con- 
stitution of 1808 was evidently borrowed from the Constitu- 
tion of the United States; and Fisk, at first, inadvertently 
retained the same principle. The truth is that the several 
Annual Conferences bear no such relation to the Connex- 
ion as the several states bear to the general government of 
the Union. The number and extent of the Annual Confer- 
ences is a mere accident, mutable at the will of any General 
Conference. The Church was not formed by their amalga- 
mation; but they were hewn out of the territory and the 
ministry of the Church. The one unbroken traveling Con- 
nexion; the undivided body of itinerant preachers — this, 
and this only, was the original or primary constituency 
which gave existence to the Delegated General Conference, 
and prescribed the Constitution w T hich defines its powers. 
Afterwards, in both Episcopal Methodisms, this primal body 
admitted the laity to a share of the government. It follows 
that whether the majority of those favoring a constitutional 
change be concentrated in one Annual Conference or be 
scattered through them all, their will should prevail. And 
for this the measure of 1828, as adopted, provided. The 
Annual Conference rightfully ceased to be in any sense a 
constitutional unit. 

Accordingly in the General Conference of 1832 the Com- 
mittee on Itinerancy reported that the measure submitted in 
1828 had been approved as the Constitution required by all 
the Annual Conferences, 44 in full and due form, with the 
exception of the Illinois, where we find some want in the 
formality; not sufficient, however, in the judgment of your 
committee to alter or set aside the principle." The entire 
Illinois delegation joined in a written assurance to the Gener- 
al Conference that 44 the informality arose from the want of 
information, and not with any intention to embarrass the true 



404 The Delegated General Conferences. 



design of the said resolution." Thereupon the General 
Conference unanimously concurred.* The amendment 
then adopted stands unaltered in the Discipline of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church to this day; so it stands, verbatim^ 
in the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South: 
to it was added, by the constitutional process, in 1870, the 
provision for the so-called veto power of the Bishops. 

The question is often asked, Are the doctrinal statements 
and standards of Methodism unchangeable ? It is true that 
the Discipline nowhere contains any express provision for 
their change ; but it is also true that the original provision 
of 1808 has never been abrogated by the joint action of the 
General and Annual Conferences. The new method of 
constitutional amendment is applicable to all the restrictions 
66 excepting the first article." While the legislators of 1828- 
1832 did not think it wise to suggest the mutability of the 
doctrines of the Church by incorporating in the Discipline a 
prescribed constitutional process for their alteration, the Gen- 
eral Conference of 1828 did not ask the Annual Conferences 
to vote upon the abrogation of the existing constitutional 
method provided for the change of the restrictive rule which 
guarded the doctrines or doctrinal standards of the Church : 
consequently, the original method of constitutional change, 
prescribed in 1808 for all the restrictive rules, by which such 
changes depend upon the joint recommendation of all the 
Annual Conferences, confirmed by a majority of two-thirds 
in the succeeding General Conference, is still applicable 
to the first restrictive rule, and could be constitutionally 
used to open the way to doctrinal changes. Other methods 
have been suggested, such as eliminating by the constitu- 
tional process, from the present provision for amendment, 
the words, 4 4 excepting the first article; " and then, by a 
second use of the constitutional method, suspending or al- 
tering the first restrictive rule. But this is of doubtful valid- 
ity. It is true it requires the General and Annual Con- 
ferences to give the constitutional majorities twice over, be- 

*Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 377, 378, 382, 383. 



The Fourth and Fifth, 1824.-1828. 



fore the doctrines can be touched, and thus appears doubly 
to guard them. But, in reality, could these majorities be 
once obtained, it would hardly be difficult to have them re- 
peated by the same constituencies. The facts are clear and 
indisputable. The General Conference of 1808 ordained a 
given method of constitutional amendment for all the re- 
strictive rules. In 1828 the General Conference asked the 
Annual Conferences to alter this, for all the restrictions ex- 
cept the first. It was done. The General Conference did 
not ask for any change in the method prescribed for con- 
stitutionally amending the first restriction. The Annual 
Conferences did not have any such proposition before 
them. Hence the original prescription of 1808 remains in 
force. 

Four years after the division of territory with the British 
Conference, and the mutual exchange of members, Upper 
Canada, in 1824, was constituted an Annual Conference. 
And in 1828 the five delegates of the Canada Conference 
were in their seats at Pittsburg, representing nearly 10,000 
members. But a petition from the body was presented by 
William Ryerson, praying that it might " be separated from 
the jurisdiction of the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in the United States." The petition 
was referred to a special committee consisting of Messrs. 
Bangs, Bonney, Pitman, Paddock, Bigelow, and Leach. 
May 12, the committee reported; but " after considerable 
discussion, Win. Capers moved and R. Paine seconded, 
that the motion for adopting the report be laid on the table, 
and that the report be made the order of the day for Friday 
next;'" and this motion prevailed. Friday, May 16, the re- 
port of the committee was taken up as ordered: constitu- 
tional difficulties appear to have been started by the com- 
mittee, whose report does not appear in the Journal. Ca- 
pers, seconded by Hodges, moved to amend the first resolu- 
tion of the report by striking out the words, " it is unconsti- 
tutional to grant," and inserting in lieu, " as well as that 
the expediency of the measure does not certainly appear, 



406 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



we decline granting." The Conference adjourned with the 
Capers amendment pending. The next day Luckey moved 
to amend the Capers amendment so as to read, " it is expe- 
dient to grant," etc.; but the Chair ruled that this motion 
could not then be acted on; and the original resolution of 
the committee was taken up. Ostrander moved " to strike 
out the first clause of the resolution, which says that the sev- 
eral Annual Conferences have not recommended it to the 
General Conference," which motion was lost. The Con- 
ference finally adjourned without action on the report. 
This report of the first select committee seems to have been 
an unmanageable document, and as the Conference, after 
two trials, could do nothing with it, it is not recorded in the 
Journal. Dr. Bangs says that 44 it was contended, and the 
committee to whom it was first referred so reported, which 
report was approved of by the General Conference, that we 
had no constitutional right to set off the brethren in Upper 
Canada as an independent body," etc.* The Doctor, who 
was the chairman of the committee, is no doubt correct as 
to the nature of the report ; but it does not appear from the 
Journal that the General Conference approved it, or finally 
disposed of it in any way. Up to this time it had not oc- 
curred to any one that the Canada Conference, though situ- 
ated in a foreign country, sustained any different relation to 
the General Conference and the Connexion, from that occu- 
pied by the other Annual Conferences. It had been consti- 
tuted in the same way; it exercised its prerogatives under 
the same rules and regulations which defined the province 
and duties of the remaining Annual Conferences; and its 
delegates represented it in the General Conference, elected 
like those of other Conferences. But this Annual Confer- 
ence was before the General Conference with a petition to 
be erected into a distinct ecclesiastical Connexion, which, 
for various reasons, not necessary to canvass here, it was 
highly desirable to grant. At this juncture, it was, appar- 
ently, that Mr. Emory proposed his theory of a voluntary 
*Hist. M. E. Church, III. 390, 391. 



The Fourth and Fifth, 1824.-1828. 



compact between the Canadians and the Americans — 4 4 we 
had offered them our services, and they had accepted them 
— and therefore, as the time had arrived when they were no 
longer willing to receive or accept of our labors and superin- 
tendence, they had a perfect right to request us to withdraw 
our services, and we the same right to withhold them." 
"This presented the subject," continues Dr. Bangs, "in a 
new and very clear light." * That it was new, there could 
be little question : its clearness depends somewhat on the an- 
gle of vision. 

However, the report of the first committee having come to 
naught, William Ryerson, on behalf of the Canadians, sub- 
mitted, May 17, a preamble and series of resolutions, based 
on the "voluntary compact" doctrine. His first resolution 
was adopted by a vote of 104 for to 43 against, as follows : 

Resolved, etc., i. That the compact existing between the Canada Annual 
Conference and the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States be, 
and hereby is dissolved by mutual consent, and that they are at liberty to 
form themselves into a separate Church establishment. 

Mr. Ryerson's remaining resolutions, four in number, 
were referred to a new committee, consisting of five mem- 
bers, Messrs. Emory, Fisk, Jones, Waugh y and Paine. 
May 21, the report of this able committee was adopted by a 
vote of 108 for and 22 against. Later, Mr. Emory moved 
that the vote by which Mr. Ryerson's resolution, recited 
above, had been adopted should be reconsidered. His mo- 
tion prevailed, and the resolution was rescinded. t 

By some oversight this report as adopted was not insert- 
ed in the Journal of 1828. In 1832 Roszel moved its inser- 
tion in the Journal of that year, and it so appears, as follows: 

Resolved, by the delegates of the annual conferences in General Confer- 
ence assembled, that whereas the jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in the United States of America has heretofore been extended over 
the ministers and members in connexion with said Church in the province 
of Upper Canada, by mutual agreement, and by the consent and desire of 
our brethren in that province; and whereas this General Conference is sat- 

* Hist. M. E. Church, III. 391, 392 ; Dr. Emory's Life of Bp. Emory, pp. 107, 108. 
fFor all the above proceedings in regard to Canada, see Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 311, 312, 
322, 323, 33s, 336-33 8 » 34°, 346, 354. 



408 The Delegated Gene?'al Conferences. 



isfactorilj assured that our brethren in the said province, under peculiar and 
pressing circumstances, do now desire to organize themselves into a distinct 
Methodist Episcopal Church, in friendly relations with the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church in the United States, therefore be it resolved, and it is hereby 
resolved by the delegates of the annual conferences in General Conference 
assembled, 

1. If the annual conference in Upper Canada at its ensuing session or any 
succeeding session previously to the next General Conference, shall definite- 
ly determine on this course, and elect a general superintendent of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church in that province, this General Conference do hereby 
authorize any one or more of the general superintendents of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in the United States, with the assistance of any two or 
more elders, to ordain such general superintendent for the said Church in 
Upper Canada, provided always, that nothing herein contained be contrary 
to or inconsistent with the laws existing in the said province; and provided 
that no such general superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
Upper Canada, or any of his successors in office, shall at any time exercise 
any ecclesiastical jurisdiction whatever in any part of the United States, or 
of the territories thereof; and provided also, that this article shall be ex- 
pressly ratified and agreed to by the said Canada Annual Conference, before 
any such ordination shall take place. 

2. That the delegate who has been selected at this General Conference to 
attend the ensuing annual conference of the British Wesleyan Methodist 
Connexion be, and hereby is, instructed to express to that body the earnest 
and affectionate desire of this General Conference that the arrangement 
made with that connexion in relation to the labors of their missionaries in 
Upper Canada may still be maintained and observed. 

3. That our brethren and friends, ministers or others in Upper Canada 
shall, at all times, at their request, be furnished with any of our books and 
periodical publications on the same terms with those by which our agents 
are regulated in furnishing them in the United States, and until there shall 
be an adjustment of any claims which the Canada Church may name. On 
this connexion the Book Agents shall divide to the said Church an equal 
proportion of any annual dividend which may be made from the Book Con- 
cern to the several annual conferences respectively; provided that however 
the aforesaid dividend shall be apportioned to the Canada Church only as 
long as they may continue to support and patronize our Book Concern as in 
the past. Respectfully submitted as agreed. W. Fisk, Chairman. 

Pittsburg, May 26, 1828. * 

The parallelisms between this and a later division of the 
Church we need not now point out. The contrast between 
this peaceful separation and the stormy departures of the 
two African Churches and of the Methodist Protestants and 
the Wesleyans is delightful. We can conceive, also, of a 



*Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 406, 407. 



The Fourth and Fifth, 1824.— 1828. 



technical definition by which this separation of the Cana- 
dians might be styled a " secession," since the action of the 
General Conference is expressly based on the Canadian in- 
itiative; but, as a matter of fact, we are not aware that this 
hard and ugly word has ever been applied to it. Bishop 
Hedding presided at the last session of the Canada Confer- 
ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church. After the usual 
business of such a body had been transacted, resolutions 
were adopted declaring the connection of the Conference 
with the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States 
dissolved, and organizing an independent Church in Canada. 
Bishop Hedding thereupon vacated the chair. The next 
year he attended as a visitor, and ordained the first elders 
and deacons of the new Church.* 

There is little else in the action of the General Confer- 
ence of 1828 that demands attention in these pages: the 
body adjourned Saturday, May 24. 



* Clark's Life of Hedding, pp. 364, 365, 380. 



CHAPTER XXIII. 



THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH DELEGATED GENERAL CONFER- 
ENCES, 1832 AND 1836: CONCLUSION. 



THE Sixth Delegated General Conference met at Phila- 
delphia, May 1, 1832, and was composed of about two 
hundred and twenty five delegates, representing nineteen 
Conferences. No less than six of the future Bishops of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, were among its mem- 
bers: James O. Andrew, elected at this time; William Ca- 
pers, Robert Paine, Henry B. Bascom, Hubbard H. Kava- 
naugh, and John Early. 

The membership of the General Conference was becom- 
ing too large. This Conference unanimously recommended 
that the ratio of representation be one in fourteen, and, in 
addition to the constitutional amendment previously noticed, 
recommended, also by a unanimous vote, an amendment 
which recognizes the principles of fractional representation 
and that no Annual Conference shall be without representa- 
tion ; all of which was concurred in by the Annual Confer- 
ences as follows: 

Resolved, 2. That the Second Article of the Restrictive Rules be so al- 
tered as to read: "They shaM not allow of more than one representative 
for every fourteen members of the Annual Conference, nor allow of a less 
number than one for every thirty; provided, nevertheless, than when there 
shall be, in any Annual Conference, a fraction of two-thirds of the number 
which shall be fixed for the ratio of representation, such Annual Conference 
shall be entitled to an additional delegate for such fraction ; and provided, 
also, that no Conference shall be deprived of the privilege of two delegates." * 

At the Conference of 1836, on motion of John Early, the 
ratio of representation was changed to one in twenty-one — 
so rapid was the increase in the ministry and membership of 
the Church. 

The Committee on Episcopacy, in the eighth item of 



*Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 402. 

(410) 



The Sixth and Seventh, 183 2- 183 6: Conclusion. 411 



their report, said that, considering the great extent of the 
work, "the committee deem it inexpedient to require each 
of our bishops to travel throughout the whole of their exten- 
sive charges during the recess of the General Conference," 
etc. As this action was somewhat ambiguous, the bishops, 
May 28, asked for an explanation by vote of the Conference, 
without debate, in answer to the following question: 

Was it the intention of the General Conference, by the resolution above 
alluded to, simply to relieve the bishops from the influence of the resolution 
passed at the last General Conference on the same subject, and to leave them 
now at liberty on their joint and several responsibility to make such arrange- 
ments among themselves for the entire administration, and for the visitation 
of the Annual Conferences as they shall judge most conducive to the gen- 
eral good; and without designing to give any direction or advice whether 
it be or be not expedient for each of the bishops, in the course of the four 
years, to visit each of the Annual Conferences, should they themselves find 
it convenient and practicable, and judge it for the general good so to do?* 

The Conference responded in the affirmative. Tuesday, 
May 22, the episcopal election had resulted in the choice of 
James Osgood Andrew and John Emory, the former receiv- 
ing 140 and the latter 135 votes, out of 223, on the first bal- 
lot, f 

The Conference adjourned, Monday evening, May 28. 
The closing session was presided over by Bishop Emory. It 
was the only time he ever occupied the chair in a General 
Conference; but, amid the rush and confusion, his presi- 
dency was distinguished by perfect coolness and self-pos- 
session, promptness and impartiality. " It was the most 
harmonious and conservative session," says Bishop Paine, 
" held since the organization of the delegated body in 1808." 
It was the last General Conference at which Bishop Mc- 
Kendree was present, — a peaceful close after the storms of 
his later episcopate. " Leaning on his staff, his once tall 
and manly form now bent with age and infirmity, his eyes 
suffused with tears, his voice faltering with emotion, he ex- 
claimed, ' Let all things be done without strife or vain- 
glory, and try to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond 



*Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 419, 420, -\ /bid., I. 401. 



412 



The Delegated General Conferences. 



of peace. My brethren and children, love one another.' 
Then spreading forth his trembling hands," continues Mr. 
Larrabee, 44 and raising his eyes to heaven, he pronounced, 
in faltering and affectionate accents, the apostolic benedic- 
tion." As he left the house, the General Conference rose 
and stood until his tottering form disappeared. If Asbury 
was the Moses, McKendree was the Joshua of our Israel: 
this was his last survey of the heads of the tribes, and his 
farewell to the assembled elders. 

The Seventh Delegated General Conference assembled 
in the city of Cincinnati, Monday, May 2, 1836, with all the 
Bishops — Roberts, Soule, Hedding, and Andrew — present, 
and with the delegates of twenty-two Annual Conferences in 
their seats. For the first time a Judiciary Committee was 
appointed, on motion of Nathan Bangs. Its functions were 
thus defined in the motion, — 44 to whom may be referred all 
appeals or complaints of any character against the acts and 
doings of an Annual Conference," and 44 to report whether, 
in their opinion, the complainants are legally entitled to be 
heard," etc.* 

From time to time, there are traces of the primitive Epis- 
copalianism of our Methodist fathers in the Journals. A 
resolution was adopted instructing the Committee on Re- 
visal to inquire into the expediency of introducing a rule into 
the Discipline for the reception of ordained ministers from 
other Churches, by which it should be first ascertained, 
44 whether his ordination will be considered valid, especially 
those who hold to Presbyterian ordination." On the last 
day of the session, it was agreed, on motion of John Early, 
44 that the Bishops be requested to select some suitable and 
competent person to prepare for publication a vindication of 
our Episcopal ordination." In 1824, Roszel had moved that 
when a minister 44 has been regularly ordained by a bishop 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church, such ordination shall 
be, and hereby is considered valid "t It is not intended to 
undertake any defense of the principles implied in these mo- 



*Gen. Conf. Journal, I. 433. -\Ibid., I. 271, 441, 497. 



The Sixth and Seventh, 183 2-1 83 6 : Conclusion. 413 



tions : they are introduced simply to indicate how long the 
so-called High-church principles of the first Methodists lin- 
gered in American Methodism, and how unhistorical are the 
modern attempts to fasten upon our American Methodist fa- 
thers and founders the principles of Quakerism or even of 
Presbyterianism. They were Episcopalians, and Wesley 
and his coadjutors on both sides of the Atlantic, meant to 
found, and did found, an Episcopal Church, according to 
the principles of moderate episcopacy once generally accept- 
ed in the Church of England, and always represented by a 
respectable minority of eminent divines in that Church. 

The Conference committed itself strongly and unqualified- 
ly against 44 modern abolitionism:"* there was no slavery 
legislation by the General Conferences of 1828, 1832, or 
1836; or, indeed, until long after the division of the Church. 

Beverly Waugh, Thomas A. Morris, and Wilbur Fisk 
were elected Bishops; the last mentioned, on his return from 
Europe, declined to be ordained. Bishops Roberts, Soule, 
and Hedding were all granted permission to retire from 
episcopal service so far as their health might demand. 

Friday afternoon, May 27, the report on temperance be- 
ing under discussion, on motion of William Winans it was 
asrreed, " that the resolution under consideration be referred 
to the bishops, with the request that they give their opinion, 
whether it interfere with the fourth restrictive regulation in 
our Discipline;" afterwards " the whole report was referred 
to the bishops for their decision, whether its contents inter- 
fere with the restrictive resolution referred to." The de- 
cision of the Bishops does not appear from the Journal. 

Friday evening, May 27, 1836, the General Conference 
adjourned. 

And here, having pursued the constitutional history of our 
Church from the assembling of the first English Conference 
in 1744, under the presidency of John Wesley, and of the 
first American Conference in 1773, under the presidency of 
Thomas Rankin, to the close of a well defined period of di- 



* Gen. Conf. Journals, I. 443, 446-447. 



414 The Delegated General Conferences. 

vided constitutional sentiment and interpretation in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, which were rapidly crystalli- 
zing in the two wings of the Church, we may fittingly bring 
our narrative to a close. The calm between the storm which 
abated in 1828 and that which burst on the Church in 1844, 
deceptive though it was, affords a good opportunity for 
taking observations and determining our bearings. It is the 
best point in our history from which to take the long look 
back to our beginnings, and the long look ahead to our pres- 
ent. All the principles of the Constitution, as illustrated in 
cases of their concrete application, have passed under review 
in our pages ; and much of the late constitutional history of 
the Church, down to the centenary of the General Confer- 
ence in 1892, has been anticipated, at least in its broad out- 
lines. Withholding detailed discussion of the later affairs of 
the Church, upon which equally sincere brethren are not yet 
able to see eye to eye, the author diffidently submits these 
results of labors, which, to him, at least, have been deeply 
engaging, to the candid consideration of the Methodist Epis- 
copalians of the United States, and humbly invokes the 
favor of Him, without whose blessing nothing is wise or 
good or strong. 



THE END. 



HI 51 82 H 



4 

\ 

t 

( 

c 

* 

I 



